No particular point of view to push or points to score. But not so long ago jdsmith suggested that maybe it’s time for a thread on the UAE, so here’s one. Given the ports fiasco, it’s topical and timely. Just looking for information and insight. Here’s a starter.
[quote=“The Economist: Arabian dreams”]
The emirate has too much to lose by being a security risk
[…]
Much worse has been the furore in America’s Congress aroused by Dubai’s $6.8 billion takeover of Britain’s P&O
I concur with the gist of the article, or to put it more colorfully," the only color in Dubai is green." Fom what I understand pretty much everyone, even police and local officials are expats. Fox recently listed it as the “World’s Hippest City.” Even though Sheik Mohammed is ultimatley in charge, he mostly just makes sure smart people are in place running things and reaps the rewards. Also of note is that by being so effective as a port, business, and soon to be tourism hub, it has been the 1st Arab city to really move from bieng an oil based economy to being a true global business hub. Also notable is how drastically different the rest of UAE is, basically functioning on the old Arab model, with Abu Dhabi as the main oil hub. Anyway, that’s really just my (somewhat educated) perception of the place, if anyone’s lived there or has any real experience there feel free to set me straight.
It’s been a while, but it’s good to keep your eye on the ball.
[quote=“Thomas Barnett: It’s not proliferation when it’s among friends”][quote=“Wall Street Journal”] ARTICLE: “U.S. Plans to sign Nuclear Pact With U.A.E.: Proposed Cooperation With Middle Eastern Nation Would Face Hurdles in Congress on Proliferation Fears,” by Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, 12 December 2008.
[/quote]
We won’t let Dubai World run our ports, but we trust the UAE with nuclear technology, even though the nation has a thriving trade with over-the-Gulf Iran.
Kinda weird, huh?
Still, I think it’s a solid move.
We get UAE to promise to buy enriched nuclear fuel from our preferred network.
But even that’s funny: we dream of energy independence and yet demand that those nations who want nuclear power only buy from our monopolistic market.[/quote]First India, now the UAE.
By the way, check out where the UAE is on the map. Have a look at the neighbourhood. The UAE would be less of a speed bump than was Kuwait. If they’re going nuclear, so will the Saudis… and the Iranians. I imagine it’ll take the Iraqis a good long while to get up to snuff, but what ever happened to the anti-proliferation treaty?
Yeah, and what type of BS is it to WILLINGLY provide to some oil sheiks and not allow Iran to develop it’s own tech…
Iran has nuclear reactors. The issue is they want to make ‘the bomb’, something that the US doesn’t find appealing, neither does Israel or the rest of the Sunni Middle East.
The article is here U.S. Plans to Sign Nuclear Deal With U.A.E. from 12/12/2008. Then there is an update for today U.S. and U.A.E. to Sign Nuclear-Cooperation Pact.
Here is where and why I disagree with Thomas Barnett:
Iran already has a nuclear power plant. It’s supposed to kick off next month. Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant. Nuclear power generation technology is what the US wants to license to the UAE. The only thing Iran could get out of it would be better technology for their reactors.
The fuel. They plan on buying from the US, rather than enriching their own. This way the US can make sure they are using the nuclear fuel for the civilian power generating reactor and not sneaking it off to make their own weapon out of.
The UAE has to give the International Atomic Energy Agency carte blanche to look whenever and wherever they want.
We dream of energy independence from oil. Using nuclear is an acceptable way to achieve that while we work on truly renewable sources. It creates waste, but at least it doesn’t release the same amount of carbon that burning fossil fuels does.
Jaboney, what about anti-proliferation? This is the third pillar of it, the peaceful use of nuclear energy. They aren’t being allowed to join the club (the group of recognized nations with nuclear weapons). From how I read this, it is a power generating plant. I do agree though that the UAE could get its ass kicked by just about anyone. I think the more important thing is the security they will have on the fuel and the facility.
Text of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Here’s a wiki quote :
Barnett calls this a ‘solid move’, so are you disagreeing with him?
The agreement with India, obviously, run counter to the ends of the non-proliferation treaty.
The deal with the UAE may not, but considering the neighbourhood, and recent noise out of the White House, it’s either imprudent or inconsistent.
If the UAE were situated elsewhere, no worries. Given it’s location… well, I’d prefer that they invested in a couple of cutting edge solar schemes instead.
[quote=“Jaboney”]Barnett calls this a ‘solid move’, so are you disagreeing with him?
The agreement with India, obviously, run counter to the ends of the non-proliferation treaty.
The deal with the UAE may not, but considering the neighbourhood, and recent noise out of the White House, it’s either imprudent or inconsistent.
If the UAE were situated elsewhere, no worries. Given it’s location… well, I’d prefer that they invested in a couple of cutting edge solar schemes instead.[/quote]
Hmm I missed that line when I read his blog too. Pie in my face.
How does the agreement with India run counter to the treaty? Is the purpose to get them more fissionable material for bombs rather than a nuclear power reactor?
I would agree that having nuclear reactors there doesn’t seem like a very good idea. Extreme temperature swings from day to night, lots of water required to keep the reactions under control, sandstorms clogging the filters, geopolitical considerations, etc etc.
I think they avoid the solar schemes because of the sandstorms they get. That would rip up a solar panel pretty quick. I also would rather not see this go through, but I don’t see how it wouldn’t be hypocritical to deny the UAE their rights under the treaty just because of their location. It would lower the US’s already abysmal track record with regards to following international treaties. The US signed this one too!
I stand by my comments when the thread was initially started on the ports issue, and pretty much agree with Ibksig. I don’t see why the issue of Dubai being nominally Islamic, led by a guy with a Muslim sounding name, and in a bad neighborhood, should prevent the U.S. from having what would otherwise be normal relations with an important ally and trade partner.
Furthermore, treating Dubai as somehow lesser than European nations when in fact it has many characteristics that are more in line with the developed world than even some EU members has got to be counterproductive to any effort to bring other countries in region around to our way of thinking. We say we want them to liberalize and modernize but even when they’ve done so we still hold back because we can’t trust a middle eastern country? What kind of message is that?