British Newspaper Reports City Linked With Human Rights Violations

I was just recently made aware of a piece running in an English newspaper in which the reporter links the owners of Manchester City with alleged human rights violations in the UAE and his story may have some basis but the report itself is full of smoke and mirrors. This is what I have after researching for just a little time.



Early on in the piece he says:

"English football has been warned it has allowed one of its major clubs to be exploited as a "branding vehicle" by an international regime accused of human rights abuses after a trial in Abu Dhabi, a country ruled by Manchester City's owner and his brothers, was widely denounced as repressive, involving torture, and "fundamentally unfair". 

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have vehemently protested against the mass arrest of 94 people, their alleged torture while in Abu Dhabi jails, a "fundamentally unfair" trial, and long prison sentences with no right of appeal handed down earlier this month to the 69 people convicted. Amnesty said the treatment of the 94 in the United Arab Emirates, where Sheikh Mansour al-Nahyan's family, rulers of the richest emirate, Abu Dhabi, are dominant, "shows the authorities' determination to crush any form of dissent". 

I have highlighted the 'accused' human rights abuses and 'alleged torture' and the 'funamentally unfair' trial in which 25 of the accused were aquitted. In the same newspaper in March of this year it was reported like this:

"The defendants – unnamed doctors, academics, lawyers and other professionals – have been accused of building a secret network to plot the coup and raising money through property and other deals.

The government said the 94 were suspected of links to the Muslim Brotherhood and other unnamed parties they allegedly contacted for expertise and financial support . The detained include men and women who were arrested over the past year."

Now it is the last line that is quite important, they had been arrested over the previous twelve months. Surely then, in this report, there should have been some accusations surfacing. Back then though Egypt had a President, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, who three months prior had refused to cancel the December 2012 constitutional referndum and with tensions growing the Muslim Brotherhood was facing pressure to hold new elections. At this point there was pressure for the President to step down which he refused to do until his arrest on July 3rd. So the Muslim Brotherhood changed on the world stage from having the first democratically elected candidate as Egypts President to another dictatorship at the time of the first report in March.

The latest report on briefly mentions the defendents as linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and, when he does, he states that the authorities 'maintains the 69 were operating as a front for the Muslim Brotherhood'. The author does direct us to the Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch websites  and although Amnesty does mention violations of fair trial standards in respect to denial of legal assistance and allegations of torture. It does state that the verdict CANNOT be appealed because the case was heard by the highest court in the land. Amnesty doesn't state however (as the author said) that they were just voicing their critisism of the regime but instead were charged with an attempt to overthrow the countries political system, a coup.

As for long sentances of the 56 people found guilty 2 men got 10 years, 8 got 15 years in abstatia and 5 others were given 8 years. 25 including all 13 women were aquitted. On a side note the Amnesty website states quite clearly that they had been involved in peaceful and political debate for years under the group name Al-Islah (Reform and Social Guidance). It was alleged that they were also a part of a more sinister group linked with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Witnesses in the court room on March 4th also speak of the alleged ill treatment of the defendents. The judge ordered medical examinations although no one knows if these were carried out. In conclusion it recommends cooperation with the UN Human Rights bodies and an examination the allegations of tourture.

The Human Rights Watch website has just copied and pasted the Amnesty report, or vica versa.

Now to get the relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and the UAE some more context. There has been friction between the UAE and Mr Morsi's government, which Abu Dhabi saw as part of a Muslim Brotherhood campaign to take power in countries across the region. These concerns could certainly be backed up by the Egyptian cleric Safwat Higazi, who spoke at the announcement rally for the candidate Morsi saying that Morsi would liberate Gaza and restore the caliphate of the 'United States of the Arabs'.

Saudi Arabia was wary of Morsi but still engaged with it. Qatar pledged gas supplies to Egypt and offered moral support to Morsi. The only Arab county standing out with critisism of Morsi's Government? The UAE.

So then in the article comes some cropped quotes to put a different context on what Kaldoon Al-Mubarak (who he just calls Mubarak, also the name of Egypts dispossed dictator) says. This is what he says:

In an interview with the Guardian in 2009, Mubarak said of the running of City: "This is telling a lot to the world about how we are. It is showing the world … the true essence of … what Abu Dhabi is about. There is almost a personification of the values we hold as Abu Dhabi, with the values of the club and the values we would like to stick to." 

As you read this you could be mistaking in thinking some Dr Evil pose taking place. In actual fact the quotes are from two different sections of the 2009 article and when read in that article shows it in a different light. So first the quote in blue (which actually appears AFTER the part in red).

We are acknowledging that how we are handling this project is telling a lot to the world about how we are," Khaldoon said. "The UAE is different from other Arab countries. People think the Arab world is one, but it is not. This is showing the world the true essence of who Abu Dhabi is and what Abu Dhabi is about. That is something new, something we didn't really plan for."

There is an appreciation of the association the club have with Abu Dhabi that we hold very dearly," Khaldoon, with calm, steady conviction, explained. "There is almost a personification of the club with the values we hold as Abu Dhabi, as Sheikh Mansour. These are loyalty, commitment, discipline, long-term thinking, respect, appreciation of history."

Back to the Human Rights Watch element of the story and the author says that the HRW makes specific reference to Manchester City, and indeed they do. In a report dated April 15th 2013 (which was the last to mention City) they say this:

The UAE has donated significant amounts of money to issues that fall into one of three categories: children, hospitals and disasters (and preferably close to D.C.) In 2009, for instance, the government of Abu Dhabi donated $150 million to build the Institute for Pediatric Surgical Innovation at Children's National Medical Center in Washington D.C. In partnership with England's Manchester City Football Club, which is owned by the UAE’s deputy prime minister, the UAE Embassy has built soccer fields in L.A., Miami, Chicago, and New York, and will open another in D.C. for the start of the 2013-14 season. The UAE also donated funds to assist with the post-Hurricane Katrina clear-up.

Now there is a HRW report that does mention Manchester City in the same breath as an alleged human rights violator, Thaksin Shinawatra, July 30th 2007.