Should we respect the sovereignity of the Gulf states?

[politicus]

Some of the Gulf states are increasingly becoming a security threat to the West and they uphold labour conditions close to modern slavery. Unlike Saudi-Arabia they are not really nation states apart from Oman and Bahrain (still almost half Bahraini). Kuwait is at least majority Arabic and its citizens less involved in funding terrorism. Also more likely to liberalize. But then there are UAE and Quatar. 

Oman is not a problem, Bahrain is a Shia/Sunni issue despite a majority of outsiders among their population. Kuwait can be reasoned with. But should we try to get rid of the regimes in UAE and Qatar? Their rulers have made them into apartheid states - you ca say its not the fault of ordinary Emiratis and Quataris given they live in authoritarian regimes, but they are nevertheless a minority and we need resettlement areas for refugees. Are we obliged to respect their sovereignty or could UAE with a majority Indian/Nepali population be taken over by India as an overseas state - or made a UN-territory used to house migrants. Could Qatar be put under UN-administration (the worst security threat among them) be used to resettle Syrians?

How would Saudi-Arabia react to this? Get scared and stop their own terror financiers or radicalize? Is it too much of a gamble?

If you think this is unacceptable how do you see the long term future of the Gulf States? What will replace the Emirs, Sultans ans Sheikhs? Or do you believe they will hang on forever?

[DavidB.]

Regardless of morality, it is extremely unlikely that an intervention will take place. Geopolitically, these states are not really problematic for the West, whereas intervention would be risky in terms of oil price, etc. Interventions are generally impopular in the post-Iraq/Bush era, in the US as much as in Europe, and there are some countries higher on the "intervention priority list". I am not really sure as to how "some of the Gulf states are increasingly becoming a security threat to the West". Qatar, of course, is funding terrorism against Israeli citizens, but I don't know if we should really consider Israel "the West" (and if we do, I know some countries that are/should be higher on the "intervention priority list" as well...).

I totally agree that the slavery in the Gulf states (we should call it like it is) needs to be ended - and it needs to be ended pretty damn soon, because the situation is truly abhorrent. The general lack of awareness among the public is a problem, because this causes the issue to be low on the political agendas of Western governments. It seems like we, collectively, give these countries a free pass to do what they do. Even many politically engaged people have no problems with staying in a hotel in Dubai  - probably built by slaves - on their 30-hour layover to Australia. Before even considering military intervention, much more political pressure should be exerted on these countries, both by governments and by individuals (boycotts!). In the meantime, NGOs should be supported by foreign governments in order to render the situation somewhat better for the slaves. Pro-human rights countries and the slaves' "home countries" should together discuss strategies to tackle the problem (outside the useless arena that's called UN) through joint political pressure.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I certainly think Western countries should stop giving them arms. (But I'm very anti-arms trade in general)

[bagelman]

We should stop doing business with them and COMPLETELY HALT any and all military support. As for the slavery thing, maybe if we stopped supported these scumbags than India and their nuclear deterrent can help with labor conditions.

[ingemann]

I don't support the precedence of minor states being invaded and occupied. Also while some of the treatment of guest workers in these states are horrible and slave like, most are not, which is why we still see people deciding to work there. But honestly few people have a real interest in living there long term, it's a place you go tto work a few years before you go home, so it would seem weird to suddenly expand citizenship to a large number of people whose families doesn't live there and who are just waiting to go home again after having earned some money.

This doesn't mean that I don't think these states (Oman as the exception of course) are a horrible boil on our planet, and I personal think we should do our best to avoid sending money to these states. But as I doubt they can upkeep their lifestyle after the oil have run out, and we will likely see Qatar and Dubai end up as poverty strike hell holes in our lifetime, so let them rot.

[Storebought]

You overstate the case that the Indian and Filipino populations of the Persian Gulf countries could ever effect a regime change in those places. How could they possibly?, since these people only move to the Persian Gulf, with their already terrible reputations in India and Philippines, out of extreme poverty and no worthwhile family connections at home.

I'd go farther: if Bahrain or Qatar decides to indiscriminate murder their foreign populations, the Indian government may well complain, but, again, extreme poverty and no family connections will send new streams of Indians and Filipinos right back into the place.

There is also the strong likelihood that a regime change any Persian Gulf country would just benefit Iran.

[politicus]

You overstate the case that the Indian and Filipino populations of the Persian Gulf countries could ever effect a regime change in those places. How could they possibly?, since these people only move to the Persian Gulf, with their already terrible reputations in India and Philippines, out of extreme poverty and no worthwhile family connections at home.

I'd go farther: if Bahrain or Qatar decides to indiscriminate murder their foreign populations, the Indian government may well complain, but, again, extreme poverty and no family connections will send new streams of Indians and Filipinos right back into the place.

There is also the strong likelihood that a regime change any Persian Gulf country would just benefit Iran.

I made no such claim and never mentioned Filipinos at all.

It was a moral argument - not a causal.

[Storebought]

You overstate the case that the Indian and Filipino populations of the Persian Gulf countries could ever effect a regime change in those places. How could they possibly?, since these people only move to the Persian Gulf, with their already terrible reputations in India and Philippines, out of extreme poverty and no worthwhile family connections at home.

I'd go farther: if Bahrain or Qatar decides to indiscriminate murder their foreign populations, the Indian government may well complain, but, again, extreme poverty and no family connections will send new streams of Indians and Filipinos right back into the place.

There is also the strong likelihood that a regime change any Persian Gulf country would just benefit Iran.

I made no such claim and never mentioned Filipinos at all.

It was a moral argument - not a causal.

If Indians or other migrants living in the Gulf countries don't initiate the regime change, then, if I understand you correctly, you want the Indian Army to do instead?

There was a precedent for that with the capture of Goa, but I think the more salient one in this age is the Russian Army annexation of Crimea on the basis that a majority of its residents are ethnic Russians "abused" by their national government.

In that case, I'd honestly put more hope in the migrant labor uprising.

[Antonio the Sixth]

lolno

If there's a place where  the West should topple governments left and right, it's the Gulf Coast.

[Famous Mortimer]

I think it's weird that you find the proposal to buy an island and pay off a couple thousand fisherman hopelessly unrealistic but you think India invading the Arabian peninsula is perfectly within the realm of possibility.

For the record, I think both are good ideas. Good crazy ideas.

[/]

Florida is fine, but I have my reservations with TX, LA, MS, and AL.

[dead0man]

We should stop doing business with them and COMPLETELY HALT any and all military support.

That's where I'm at.  Lets see how that goes before we send in the Marines.

[politicus]

I think it's weird that you find the proposal to buy an island and pay off a couple thousand fisherman hopelessly unrealistic but you think India invading the Arabian peninsula is perfectly within the realm of possibility.

This was mostly meant as a principled/moral question. Do states lose their right to sovereignty if they voluntarily import a foreign majority and treats them horribly? Apartheid South Africa was considered illegitimate because of its social model - the (worst of) the Gulf States are the closest modern parallel. South Africa was different because the oppressed people were a native population, but does that make a difference? Questions like that. I think that it was clear that a hypothetical foreign invasion of South Africa to topple the apartheid regime would have been considered legitimate by most.

Then there is the rulers doing bad things/should the common people suffer dilemma. Have Quataris lost sovereignty because of something a unelected government has done? They have benefitted from the system without trying to rebel against it - does that count as complicity?

[TNF]

The United States should stay out of the Near East, period.

[politicus]

The United States should stay out of the Near East, period.

Not really about the US in particular.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The United States should stay out of the Near East, period.