Emirates ....... from the state security service to the security of the nation!

Dr. Mohammed Abdul Karim al-Amiri

UAE Ambassador

Few weeks ago, our beloved UAE completed the fourth decade of its glorious union. It may be a short period in the reconstruction of countries, but if it was measured by its achievements, it would be really very long. Its regime has succeeded in performing a lot of achievements, ranging from the political unification of its entities to the outstanding success of building up the Emirati people and their welfare. The ruling families have provided UAE citizens a unified country and began the process of building up their country voluntarily and not based on any popular pressure or claims. These achievements come to strengthen the cohesion between the historical rulers of the country and their fellow citizens that has been established over hundreds of years. We would like to alert the supervisors to the state security service that this national heritage of those rulers is being subjected to systematic distortion due to the practices of some employees of the security service. Some of those who are affiliated to this device security have invested the security risks that threatened the world in recent years to control all aspects of the state and its internal and external institutions. Consequently, it is undoubtedly a great risk threatening the safety of the country and its social security. These risks are doubled and increased if we realize that the security agency exercises its activity based on false premise regarding the nature and the fact of danger that threatens our homeland. As a matter of fact, continuation of these practices will jeopardize our country rather than protecting it. Also, these policies will make the UAE more vulnerable to external risks.

The current article attempts to draw attention to the dangers of that matter and shed light on the importance of moving quickly, by the rulers and politicians of the country, to rectify it and prevent its continuation. Moving, actually, should be based on the review of the way by which the security services act from two considerations: the first is that the apparatus works on false premises, which assumes that the regime is in danger and the source of this danger is the "Muslim Brotherhood". The current article seeks to prove the opposite, namely that the regime in the UAE is not threatened by any risk, which means that the security service activity must be applied to protect the country. Secondly, the apparatus is not aware of the fact that the security risks are changeable according to the changes in the Arab and international realities around us. The Arab revolutions brought about a coup in the Arab political reality by which the former opposition groups are about to become the new rulers.

It is clear that there is blurring and lack of clarity in the vision of those who work in the security service and the fact about its role. In other words, is it an apparatus to protect the security of the state (regime) or to protect the security of the homeland? The policies and practices indicate that the apparatus considers itself the protector of the regime rather than an apparatus that protects the security of the homeland. This perception has been built on the premise that the regime is threatened by the danger comes from the "Brotherhood." It is clear that it is flimsy and unwarranted premise in the light of the historical relationship between the UAE rulers and its people. Up to the moment, the apparatus is unable to provide an evidence of the existence of such organization in the country. Consequently, this crumbling claim is just a hypothesis being imported from different countries whose historical development path is completely different from the historical path of the evolution of the UAE society and its regimes. Also it should be realized that this group shifted from being a banned organization, the majority of its members and leaders are in the Egyptian and Arab jails and prisons, to a political group which will heavily impact the political and security reality of the Arab world. Based on this, it is not in the interest of the UAE and its regime to fabricate a battle with this powerful political group. Even if we accept the controversial hypothesis that our regime is facing a threat by the "Muslim Brotherhood", then the real owners of these allegations should answer the following questions: Did the security services in Egypt, Syria, Tunisia or Libya, for example, manage to get rid of the "Muslim Brotherhood" in theses countries? The other question is: What are the means owned by the security service in the UAE, so being able to achieve the goal for which these defunct security services in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and in many other Arab countries in the future, failed to achieve? The last question is: What are the UAE interests in the security services` fabrication of hostility with the political group that will have great influences on determining the future of the whole Arab region?

Contrary to this wrong hypothesis, we do not need a great effort to prove that our regime is not threatened by any internal danger that requires the protection of members of the Security Service by which some of them try to convince us. As a reminder only I am going to cite three considerations:

The first is that our regime did not come to power on the back of tanks, but it was established through centuries of positive interaction between citizens and their rulers.

The second is that our regime is distinguished by the absence of the repressive practices that violate human dignity and confiscate his rights, even though there are some recorded excesses in recent years, which will be addressed later.

The third is that our regime has promoted its historical popularity by visible and various successes in uniting the country and building up the citizen.

Based on the foregoing, what the UAE really needs is an apparatus that protects the security of the homeland, not protects the security of the state (regime). Consequently, our regime is not in need for the employees` services of that apparatus because it is a protected and impervious by the loyalty and the love of its people.

It is regrettable that the policy on which the procedures of security service depend, did not take into account these facts. There are many evidences to prove what we have mentioned, one of such evidences, what are released from the lists of electoral bodies. The vast majority of citizens are missed from the lists. Moreover, a large sector of the experts and talented was excluded from these lists. Those who prepared and released these lists have missed the gravity of these procedures on homeland security, its reputation and the status of its leadership. The first of what these lists mean is the wrong and harmful impression that the regime is deprived from the loyalty of the majority of its people. It also means the deep fissures between the citizens of one nation. This fissure has resulted a bitter feeling by the absent individuals that they are second-class citizens whose loyalty are questionable. While on the other hand, there are a set of first class citizens who boast the consent of the regime and enjoy the privileges of citizenship. Also, one of the implications of this wrong hypothesis is that the security service is seeking to control the ministries and governmental institutions by referring to retirement the staff of such ministries and replacing them by retired employees of the security and defense. It wasn’t enough to the security service doing this, but it turned to be an octopus swallows institutions of civil society (non-profit organizations). What’s more, the security service is waging a frantic against a group of citizens by depriving them of government jobs and putting pressure on their livelihoods after designating them as enemies of the regime. They also act regardless to the state constitution and laws. The move to withdraw the citizenship of a group of citizens without due process is a clear evidence of such abuses, as well as the restrictions on opinion makers and classifying them as a source of dangers which threaten the country. In fact, they can not convince us that the word or the article whatever its intensity could threaten UAE regime, whose roots extends deeply in the history, or harm its leadership who has a great record of achievements that have been achieved for the citizens` interests. If we accept the fact that the regime doesn’t need to be protected from the members of the Security Service, the dangers of the insistences and adhering to these procedures are come together to cause a crack among the citizens of one country which undermines and threatens the unity of its social security. In addition, these procedures can also damage the feature by which the UAE is known, namely being free of repressive practices. Thus these procedures are considered a burden to the security of the nation, not a protection. As a result, it is required an urgent action to correct the future implications of these procedures by a comprehensive review to the message and the goals of security service based on the following facts:

- It's an apparatus for the homeland security and not for the security of the state (the regime), as the latter doesn’t need the protection of the security personnel.

- It is useful to acknowledge that the existence of the apparatus for homeland security is vital in light of the conflicting interests of the international community that is threatened by successive security risks. But there are real circumspectly from a predominance of the security service to the degree of controlling over the entire state apparatus and its institutions.

- It should be realized that there is a natural tendency of the security/military authorities to over-use it. What often governs their dealings with the challenges their societies face, is the rule: "We are powerful and great warriors," which is consistent with the normal military upbringing. But the wise leadership of resorting to political choice has avoided their community the risk of destruction by the "irresistible soldiers."

There are evidences in our Arab history on the predominance security services to the degree in which it took over the state itself. In the fall of Abbasid state, a group of people, who were mandated to protect the rulers, became the real governors of the state. But it ended up to being the final word to appoint or remove the rulers. There were also the Mamluks, who were brought to protect the rulers of the country, but all in a sudden became the real rulers.

The fifth: the formation of the (homeland security service) - or expand the existing Board, if it exists - to oversee the activities of the apparatus. Its responsibilities are determined to develop the strategy of the apparatus to include identification of potential hazards that threaten the country and to develop policies to deal with it. The strategy and policies should be reviewed on an ongoing basis to respond to the changing security challenges. It is important that the council include different orientations, views and a high level of efficiency and practical experience to be able to develop options to facilitate the process of a mature decision.

It is also important that the head of this apparatus to be civilian, subject to accountability to ward off the excesses that can be done by some employees of the apparatus as well as to confirm the presence of the political side in the apparatus measures and practices.

Fourth: The management and procedures of the apparatus should be subject to the supervision by an independent inspection council that is reformed periodically. The inspection Council reports to the of homeland security board.

There is no doubt that the revolutions in many of the Arab countries indicate that the Arab world is going through a historic turning point that would result implications on the rest of Arab countries. That makes a comprehensive review of the strategies and policies of the security service as well as the rest of the state apparatus so that we can overcome the risks of this critical stage.