Mishaal Al Gergawi, an Emirati analyst and commentator has posted a critique of my Foreign Policy piece here. I appreciate him taking the time to do that, but do disagree on a number of issues – his article and my response below:

When Foreign Policy (FP) magazine does the same my reaction is significantly higher than bothered and I assure you it is not casual either. The reason for my bias is driven the high regard I hold the FP. Moreover, it was very unsettling to see how wrong they had gotten Dubai and how much of inaccurate picture was drawn.

After quoting Sultan Sooud Al Qassemi’s recent article calling clarity on public behavior and Dr. Abulkhaleq Abdullah’s calls for preserving national identity, they go on and quote that the National has said that ‘many‘ Emiratis are moving back to the desert because of the number of foreigners in Dubai. The National’s story doesn’t even come close to insinuating that the number of Emiratis moving to the desert is significant, let alone state that they are ‘many’. Alas, the average North American reader who relies on the FP for accurate ‘foreign’ analysis now thinks that Emiratis are deserting (all pun intended) their houses Jumeirah for tents in Al Lisaili.

Yes, maybe ‘many’ should have been ‘some’, but the opaque nature of society here means getting exact figures is difficult.

The story moves on to demystify the shift in power in Dubai Inc. They start off well, saying that astute members of merchant families of Dubai are taking over the helms from Western-educated Emiratis in public entities. Then they go on to state that those very merchant families are poorer but politically stronger than the Western-educated civil servants. How can the traditional merchant families be poorer than civil servants?! Even the corrupt ones.

You miss the point. The sentence was intended to say that the merchant families may be poorer (post crash) but are politically stronger. It was not comparing their wealth to the civil servant’s wealth. Bad sentence structure I agree.

Then they site the replacement of Sultan Bin Sulayem as chairman of Nakheel with Ali Lootah as proof to that. What does Sultan Bin Sulayem’s American education have anything to do with his removal? Why isn’t Mohammed Al Abbar removed as well then? Could it perhaps be due to the varying levels of financial and managerial health Nakheel and Emaar are respectively in?

I especially enjoyed the drawing of Sultan Bin Sulayem as the young progressive Emirati and Ali Lootah (do they even know what he looks like?) as the epitome of all things conservative.

I tried to get interviews with people from all the major semi-government bodies. Not one mail/call was returned. As a journalist this makes educated guesses unfortunately necessary. I have written stories about the Metro for foreign magazines and sent over ten (10!) mails and multiple calls to their PR without getting a single reply. And the guy wins PR of the year. People are going to write stories about Dubai with the best facts they have to hand – Dubai should be more proactive in disseminating those facts, it would certainly make my life easier.

After this the story attempts to flirt with the possibility of Dubai becoming as conservative as Sharjah. They liken Dubai’s current financial troubles to Sharjah’s financial woes in the 1980s which allegedly called on Saudi for financial support and in return, by banning alcohol sale and consumption and enforcing a dress code, it became the UAE’s most conservative emirate. They quickly dismiss it as a far fetched scenario of course sighting Abu Dhabi’s commitment to Dubai. FP Tabloid?

Sharjah did get bailed out by Saudi – I put it out there as something people were saying to me as a possible road Dubai might take but dismissed it. I think it’s fair comment.

FP comforts though, saying that the Burj Khalifa name change is so far the only interference by Abu Dhabi in Dubai’s affairs so far. Let’s see, you provide a $20 billion bailout and you ask for a name change? Does anyone believe that a phone call came from Abu Dhabi saying change to tower’s name? Petty analysis.

I never said they asked – interference is far more covert than overt. I am sure there was no ‘phone call’ just as I am sure there is more AD influence on Dubai affairs in myriad ways I have no idea about.

The Iranian analysis is probably the only interesting part of the article though it is too general and fails to understand how much more complex the UAE (not just Dubai)-Iran relationship is.

I could have talked about Ras Al Khaimah’s relationship with the Revolutionary Guard in Iran but that would have been going off on a tangent and makes for an interesting article of its own. I could have talked about the security problems in Ajman but again, that is better saved for another article. Generalizations, as much as I want to avoid them, are necessary for brevity’s sake. Also try getting anyone on the record about Ajman last year for example.

Only significant difference from the usual Dubai bashing article was the closing that Dubai will improve the manner by which it conducts its affairs and quoting three others analysts of Dubai beyond Professor Christopher Davidson.

I think he gets quoted so much because he is quite honest unlike many people in the UAE who won’t speak honestly (am not including you in this!) as they have too much too lose. I agree that he is over quoted, but if there were more Emirati analysts that would go beyond soundbites and truisms, they could be quoted. I had 3 other interviews I could not use, because they sloganeered and generalised and were unpublishable.