A (presumably) Dubaian team boarded a US flagged boat in (possibly) Indian territorial waters. No one is concerned over this? Was the yacht not really a US vessel? If it was actually a Dubaian vessel then that team probably has authority over it just like how the USCG can board any US ship anywhere, anytime. Did a Dubaian team actually grab her? Maybe it was the Indian coast guard who deported her back to Dubai.
According to emirateswoman.com, shes being married off. I hope she gets another chance to escape to a more free life.
These and other incidents with the UAE recently highlight the troubling willingness with which western states and businesses still jump into bed with the authoritarian dictatorship du jour (usually on the proviso that it has a lot of oil) only to 'discover' years later that they're actually quite unpleasant.
And China isn't a dictatorship, despite now having a "permanent president" and permanent party in power that aims to fully serve this president (otherwise they wouldn't have made him president virtually unanimously -- except for two token "opposition guys", because you know, otherwise it may have looked weird from the outside).
We're playing semantics here, aren't we? Of course it's a dictatorship.
China at least has a ruling class, power isn’t completely concentrated in one person (Xi still has to negotiate between the few ruling red families and factions). I guess from that perspective, one could say there are no true dictatorships, only countries that register less or more in the dictatorship scale.
That's true of many of these arab regimes as well. Hence MBS' consolidation of power recently, for example. A monarchy is meaningless if you can blow off the power of the monarch. I am deeply sympathetic to the plight of their peoples.
Sure. But all these authoritarian regimes are authoritarian in their own ways. Dictatorship specifically means power concentrated in one individual, and that is almost an impossible bar to pass these days; power is necessarily diffused into a few or more power brokers, but the result is the same to the people.
> highlight the troubling willingness with which western states and businesses still jump into bed with the authoritarian dictatorship du jour (usually on the proviso that it has a lot of oil)
This point is still a mystery to me. If it's always been about oil, then the US is currently the largest oil producer. Why are we still relying on these countries for anything?? Is it leveraging their wealth for other investments?
Massive concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, a few who are willing to spend it lavishly on western goods and services?
Might be something to do with it. Their economies are not amongst the world's largest, but they have disproportionate power to spend for these reasons, AFAICT
Many people in the US government are also interested in selling weapons, as well as making sure the kings of those countries are investing a good portion of their money back in the US.
Many people in Silicon Valley are interested in making sure the kings of those countries are investing a good portion of their money back into their tech ventures.
The answer to this is 'geopolitics' which is basically unknowable to schmucks like us, but you can read the conjecture of people who follow it and see if it makes sense to you:
> If it's always been about oil, then the US is currently the largest oil producer. Why are we still relying on these countries for anything?
"Oil" means "lots of money". Why do capitalist nations work with extremely rich unethical countries? Well, we want some of their money.
And because "free trade!!" is a reasonable argument in the US, a whole web of conflicting motives has sprung up perpetuating trade... weapons manufacturers and fossil fuel infrastructure companies lobbying politicians for "jobs" (profit), citizens misled by simplified mainstream media, hawkish doves demanding stability for the people by supporting strong states, dovish hawks insisting on elimination of rebel forces, Europe's reliance on stability to avoid immigration crisis and dependency on Russian energy, huge foreign investments in the US economy (eg Silicon Valley), stability of international oil prices influencing stability of domestic revenue, religious tension and political lobbying (Israel)... on and on.
> About 100 countries produce crude oil. In 2017, 48% of the world's total crude oil production came from five countries:
> Russia — 13%
> Saudi Arabia — 13%
> United States — 12%
> Iraq — 6%
> Iran — 5%
Clearly a major producer, but not nearly enough to set the market price. And that's the key thing: it's a global market. Even if we set internal US policy to only consume US produced oil, we would still be affected by production of other country's because it's the global oil supply that affects the price of that oil.
For the first time since 1973, the United States is the world's largest producer of crude oil, according to preliminary estimates published on Wednesday by the Energy Department.
Texas is the epicenter of the shale boom. Production in the Permian Basin of West Texas has grown so much that in February the United States vaulted above Saudi Arabia for the first time in more than two decades, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
US output kept climbing in June and August, reaching nearly 11 million barrels per day. That nudged the United States ahead of Russia for the first time since February 1999, the EIA estimates.
The United States isn't expected to cede its crown any time soon. The EIA expects US oil production to stay ahead of Russia and Saudi Arabia through 2019.
The US produces ~13% and consumes ~20%. Given that marginal amounts change pricing drastically, there's really no one who could change the market against the wishes of the US. The wishes of the US are to kill us all with this cheap crude.
No one in this thread has claimed that the US is trying to set the market price of oil. Can you cite any author besides yourself who claims that the US foreign policy at any point in the last 15 years has been driven by a desire to keep oil cheap?
What grandparent probably meant was that for the first time in decades the US is on the verge of being able to produce all the oil it needs: today the combination of the US and Canada can produce all the oil the combination needs, and US production is increasing rapidly with the result that in a year or 2 US production by itself will suffice to meet all of the US's consumption needs.
The point is that being self-reliant on oil does not insulate you from the geopolitics of oil. Even if the US is self-reliant regarding oil, it still has national interest in what goes on in other oil-producing countries.
> the troubling willingness with which western states and businesses still jump into bed with the authoritarian dictatorship du jour
The Dictator's Handbook [1] covers this in their chapter on foreign aid. TL; DR Democratically-elected leaders like dictatorships because it's easy to buy off dictators to achieve the electorate's foreign policy goals. Qatar lets us base with them for little compared to the diplomatic, economic and other concessions democracies require from the U.S. for such privileges. (Even near-moribund democracies like Pakistan's.)
I’m trying not to come across as flippant, but in more than one western democracy, we’ve voted in parties that continue to pass draconian authoritarian laws eroding away our civil liberties and rights as humans. I don’t think it’s particularly surprising they said governments aren’t all that upset about doing business with other more open authoritarian states...
The UAE is a sheikhdom. While that does not come with all the goods from a democracy, it is much better than your average dictatorship. In theory it is similar, yet in practice a sheikh needs the support of the majority of his people.
Also, a sheikh kidnapping his own daughter is really bad, yet it is a far cry from invading other nations, as America, England and Russia do all the time.
> "Princess" is pretty disingenuous in that it lessens the Emirates' treatment of women as possessions.
In being the daughter of one of the royal family, she is actually a princess in the titular sense. Having lived in the emirates for a few years, princess is a pretty accurate term for how many Emirati women from the several royal families live: lavish material circumstances with close to zero autonomy and very explicit expectations around marriage.
A more responsible headline would read "Woman escapes captivity after seven years of planning, kidnapped at gun point on the high seas, hasn't been seen since."
Princess-ness has nothing to do with the story except to minimize her humanity.
I'm not sure what being royalty has to do with women's rights. You don't need rights to be a princess, just parentage. It's also weird to try to inject wokeness into talk of a princess through feminism when the idea of royalty is a deeply racist institution; I would think you'd take that angle.
In this case you really need to take it up with the Arabs over in the UAE.
A lot of people actually like their own culture, even the women of these societies. You and I can think it’s disgusting, but are you going to go tell them how they should be living instead?
Absolutely. They need outsiders to tell them how to live, they can't figure it out.They have had centuries and they need help. We have (small)children who could fix all their problems in a few minutes.
What a gut-wrenching story. Perpetual control over your child seems so suffocating and counter intuitive. So much so that the kid had to plan an operation to escape.
> India returned the princess to protect strategic interests
Why India?! Western Europe, Japan and the United States have strong judicial systems. The EU, in particular, wouldn't require any pre-declarations to be filed prior to claiming asylum. The only advantage to India is being able to disappear, e.g. change names and retire to a remote village. Unfortunately, she doesn't appear to have taken advantage of that.
What's your point? One thing is a list of wrongful convictions - failures of the justice system - but what happened here isn't a failure, it's the system working as designed.
That is true, it's an important distinction to make. Now, in terms of the design of the criminal justice system, the US does not fare so well either, but we don't really have to debate that here.
Still, your comment was unnecessarily ignorant and insulting; presumably there are people for who the UAE is more than the misdeeds of the ruling family; the fact that it isn't to us, is really our failing. Your post just wasn't very helpful.
What do you mean by working as designed. The founders of the US said, why don't we make sure there are some major bullet holes in this design so we make sure some innocent people go to jail? If it was part of the design, then it was the design, if it was not, it is a defect. Think of software engineering in this case.
And his point is that someone reduced the UAE and all its history and people to "what a fucked up country" then it's absolutely relevant. What about the destruction of the indians and native land, the going to war for OIL for the past 20 years and killing basically indiscriminately. Do I need to remind us of slavery? I'm a US citizen, but be prepared to take salt in the face if someone reduces your country to a sentence like that.
You didn't deserve to be downvoted. Someone said "What a fucked up country" because they have focused and narrowed down into one aspect of the country. Then you pointed out an issue with the USA and no one even comments/replies to you and described why this wouldn't be relevant. It's absolutely relevant. If someone posted this wikipedia article as a top-level HN post and someone said "What a fucked up country" (referring to the USA) it wouldn't still be in black, it would be downvoted to fucking hell.
IF YOU DOWNVOTE YOU NEED TO STATE WHY OTHERWISE WE JUST END UP WITH ONE SIDED DISCUSSION!
Because it's a bullshit equivalence. Whatever the issues are with the U.S., you have to be a lunatic to somehow see those issues as making the U.S. somehow morally equivalent to a country like the UAE.
And I'm sure somebody will jump in here about how the U.S. has started all these wars and the UAE has not, but that's also a bullshit comparison because the UAE is not the world's superpower. The proper comparison, in that regard, is between the U.S. and previous world super powers, a comparison that comes out heavily in favor of the moral standing of the U.S.
I downvoted it because it was off-topic. When we're talking about the US justice system - which we do fairly regularly - then it's a useful comment. Here it's just a red herring.
And I downvoted you for not understanding that distractions hijack the conversation. A conversation about everything is too unfocused to be a useful conversation about anything. The topic here is Dubai; you're fine with it being hijacked into a conversation about the US justice system. I'm not OK with that. Let us talk about Dubai here; we'll talk about the US justice system plenty of other places.
What a messed up former "navy officer." She entrusted nothing less than her life to him, yet he surrendered her without fight. If a man like him ever bothered to even turn off a transponder, let alone prepare for an armed assault.
That a morally messed up judgement. Hearing something like that again, and again, I long stopped wondering why people in the West come to the situation you have now. Spirit, courage and integrity - you must have them!
Are you serious? Who are you going to fight? Special ops brigade single handed - this is not a movie! Everyone would be shot dead in 3 seconds.
if anything - it was a logistics mistake on his part - going to and making contact with Indian authorities (which would extradite back to UAE.)
He should have involved professional traffickers - they'd take her anywhere for $400K. Ideally to the closest USA embassy then make some public noise after they got there. If USA was the final destination anyway.
It would have required another Trump administration scandal for that. Just look at the attempts to kidnap and serve Gulen up on a plate to Erdogan.
The US is a big country with a lot of people that aren't ok with kidnapping.
Completely serious. The woman contacted the man with a very intention of him using his past spycraft skills to get her out of the country dead or alive, and he failed her.
It was completely his failure to craft the operation, and allowing Indian board. Aside from that, would they fire on an American flagged vessel under a dubious tip off from a country with funny reputation if they were to run away from them?
And... man, you don't station anything like a whole brigade on a frigate.
You might be surprised what people consider love, and how all sorts of other beliefs get intertwined with it.
IE you have strong sacred long held beliefs that your female children are not independent, are your property. That you want the best for them, according to your beliefs and your customs, which you believe are right. That resorting to "tough love" to get wayward children on the right track is for their own good. A lot of folks would claim or deny they're hurting their children, it's their children who are being hurtful by being "disobedient", bringing dishonor, or rejecting the values on which they were raised. The list goes on and on, the rationalizations are enumerable. And even aside all that, some people just love exercising their authority over others and actively seek opportunities to do it to the maximum degree they possibly can.
It's pretty easy to rationalize cruelty as love. And everyone is the hero of their own story, so not always a lot of incentive to be objective or introspective about it.
In order to develop the kind of relationship with one's children you'd expect, you have to actually spend time with them. Sheikh Al Maktoum has 23 children with 7 different women. At that point, some of them are going to be strangers to you.
Disappearing royals are also a ... feature ... of Saudi-Arabia's ruling family, see [1, 2]. It's interesting to speculate why Khashoggi's case garnered so much more attention.
This is a horrible story indeed and I hope it gets public attention to lessen the hell the princess is going through.
It is always easy to be smart after the fact, but to me that the naval officer thought through the escape to getting out of the country, but not what happens next. For him, a French citizen, getting out to a neutral country is the end. For her, a UAE citizen without any right to stay elsewhere, it is at best a midpoint.
He could have arranged for news coverage prior to the mission by discreetly talking to some high caliber journalists so they can prep coverage and he could have involved professionals (e.g., traffickers who move refugees and have global networks).
74 comments
[ 0.33 ms ] story [ 136 ms ] threadAccording to emirateswoman.com, shes being married off. I hope she gets another chance to escape to a more free life.
We're playing semantics here, aren't we? Of course it's a dictatorship.
This point is still a mystery to me. If it's always been about oil, then the US is currently the largest oil producer. Why are we still relying on these countries for anything?? Is it leveraging their wealth for other investments?
Might be something to do with it. Their economies are not amongst the world's largest, but they have disproportionate power to spend for these reasons, AFAICT
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/11/if-saudi-oil-no-longer...
"Oil" means "lots of money". Why do capitalist nations work with extremely rich unethical countries? Well, we want some of their money.
And because "free trade!!" is a reasonable argument in the US, a whole web of conflicting motives has sprung up perpetuating trade... weapons manufacturers and fossil fuel infrastructure companies lobbying politicians for "jobs" (profit), citizens misled by simplified mainstream media, hawkish doves demanding stability for the people by supporting strong states, dovish hawks insisting on elimination of rebel forces, Europe's reliance on stability to avoid immigration crisis and dependency on Russian energy, huge foreign investments in the US economy (eg Silicon Valley), stability of international oil prices influencing stability of domestic revenue, religious tension and political lobbying (Israel)... on and on.
> About 100 countries produce crude oil. In 2017, 48% of the world's total crude oil production came from five countries:
> Russia — 13%
> Saudi Arabia — 13%
> United States — 12%
> Iraq — 6%
> Iran — 5%
Clearly a major producer, but not nearly enough to set the market price. And that's the key thing: it's a global market. Even if we set internal US policy to only consume US produced oil, we would still be affected by production of other country's because it's the global oil supply that affects the price of that oil.
For the first time since 1973, the United States is the world's largest producer of crude oil, according to preliminary estimates published on Wednesday by the Energy Department.
Texas is the epicenter of the shale boom. Production in the Permian Basin of West Texas has grown so much that in February the United States vaulted above Saudi Arabia for the first time in more than two decades, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
US output kept climbing in June and August, reaching nearly 11 million barrels per day. That nudged the United States ahead of Russia for the first time since February 1999, the EIA estimates.
The United States isn't expected to cede its crown any time soon. The EIA expects US oil production to stay ahead of Russia and Saudi Arabia through 2019.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/12/investing/us-oil-production...
No one in this thread has claimed that the US is trying to set the market price of oil. Can you cite any author besides yourself who claims that the US foreign policy at any point in the last 15 years has been driven by a desire to keep oil cheap?
What grandparent probably meant was that for the first time in decades the US is on the verge of being able to produce all the oil it needs: today the combination of the US and Canada can produce all the oil the combination needs, and US production is increasing rapidly with the result that in a year or 2 US production by itself will suffice to meet all of the US's consumption needs.
The Dictator's Handbook [1] covers this in their chapter on foreign aid. TL; DR Democratically-elected leaders like dictatorships because it's easy to buy off dictators to achieve the electorate's foreign policy goals. Qatar lets us base with them for little compared to the diplomatic, economic and other concessions democracies require from the U.S. for such privileges. (Even near-moribund democracies like Pakistan's.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator%27s_Handbook
Also, a sheikh kidnapping his own daughter is really bad, yet it is a far cry from invading other nations, as America, England and Russia do all the time.
It's a sad reminder that equality still has a long way to go.
In being the daughter of one of the royal family, she is actually a princess in the titular sense. Having lived in the emirates for a few years, princess is a pretty accurate term for how many Emirati women from the several royal families live: lavish material circumstances with close to zero autonomy and very explicit expectations around marriage.
Princess-ness has nothing to do with the story except to minimize her humanity.
A lot of people actually like their own culture, even the women of these societies. You and I can think it’s disgusting, but are you going to go tell them how they should be living instead?
Just like a dream.
The American Dream!
You sir, I like the way you think!
More background to the story:
1. India returned the princess to protect strategic interests - https://thewire.in/diplomacy/india-returned-runaway-dubai-pr...
2. http://www.asianage.com/india/all-india/300318/kidnapped-dub...
3. Indian Prime Minister authorized the operation to seize her and return back to UAE - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/04/28...
Why India?! Western Europe, Japan and the United States have strong judicial systems. The EU, in particular, wouldn't require any pre-declarations to be filed prior to claiming asylum. The only advantage to India is being able to disappear, e.g. change names and retire to a remote village. Unfortunately, she doesn't appear to have taken advantage of that.
It's not even a full list
Still, your comment was unnecessarily ignorant and insulting; presumably there are people for who the UAE is more than the misdeeds of the ruling family; the fact that it isn't to us, is really our failing. Your post just wasn't very helpful.
And his point is that someone reduced the UAE and all its history and people to "what a fucked up country" then it's absolutely relevant. What about the destruction of the indians and native land, the going to war for OIL for the past 20 years and killing basically indiscriminately. Do I need to remind us of slavery? I'm a US citizen, but be prepared to take salt in the face if someone reduces your country to a sentence like that.
https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/127-the-crime-machine-...
My issue with the parent argument is simply that the UAE is so bad it makes even a screwed up system like that in many US cities look good.
IF YOU DOWNVOTE YOU NEED TO STATE WHY OTHERWISE WE JUST END UP WITH ONE SIDED DISCUSSION!
And I'm sure somebody will jump in here about how the U.S. has started all these wars and the UAE has not, but that's also a bullshit comparison because the UAE is not the world's superpower. The proper comparison, in that regard, is between the U.S. and previous world super powers, a comparison that comes out heavily in favor of the moral standing of the U.S.
And I downvoted you for not understanding that distractions hijack the conversation. A conversation about everything is too unfocused to be a useful conversation about anything. The topic here is Dubai; you're fine with it being hijacked into a conversation about the US justice system. I'm not OK with that. Let us talk about Dubai here; we'll talk about the US justice system plenty of other places.
Life is not a video game.
That a morally messed up judgement. Hearing something like that again, and again, I long stopped wondering why people in the West come to the situation you have now. Spirit, courage and integrity - you must have them!
if anything - it was a logistics mistake on his part - going to and making contact with Indian authorities (which would extradite back to UAE.)
He should have involved professional traffickers - they'd take her anywhere for $400K. Ideally to the closest USA embassy then make some public noise after they got there. If USA was the final destination anyway.
It was completely his failure to craft the operation, and allowing Indian board. Aside from that, would they fire on an American flagged vessel under a dubious tip off from a country with funny reputation if they were to run away from them?
And... man, you don't station anything like a whole brigade on a frigate.
Professional traffickers are unnecessary, she could escape to international waters and adopt a new identity as a tourist who wants to settle.
Not everyone is good.
IE you have strong sacred long held beliefs that your female children are not independent, are your property. That you want the best for them, according to your beliefs and your customs, which you believe are right. That resorting to "tough love" to get wayward children on the right track is for their own good. A lot of folks would claim or deny they're hurting their children, it's their children who are being hurtful by being "disobedient", bringing dishonor, or rejecting the values on which they were raised. The list goes on and on, the rationalizations are enumerable. And even aside all that, some people just love exercising their authority over others and actively seek opportunities to do it to the maximum degree they possibly can.
It's pretty easy to rationalize cruelty as love. And everyone is the hero of their own story, so not always a lot of incentive to be objective or introspective about it.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40926963
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2KYQWPUbG4
It is always easy to be smart after the fact, but to me that the naval officer thought through the escape to getting out of the country, but not what happens next. For him, a French citizen, getting out to a neutral country is the end. For her, a UAE citizen without any right to stay elsewhere, it is at best a midpoint.
He could have arranged for news coverage prior to the mission by discreetly talking to some high caliber journalists so they can prep coverage and he could have involved professionals (e.g., traffickers who move refugees and have global networks).