UAE makes terrorists out of artists and academics

“After a fortnight’s work he will swagger about for a month or two with a sword at his side and a servant following him, from one ball-court to the next, ever ready to engage in a fight or an argument, so that it is most awkward to get along with him.”

So said a contemporary of the infamous painter-fighter Caravaggio, who in 1606 killed an Italian male during an act of street violence typical of his bawdy reputation. Carrying a bounty on his head, Caravaggio fled from Rome after the killing. In 1608 and 1609, records show the artist street-fighting again in Malta and then Naples. The Naples attack left him seriously injured. A year later, Caravaggio died in Tuscany, from a fever. He was 38.

Now that’s a dangerous artist. A really good artist, but also pretty nasty and unpredictable.

Last April, in an unrelated anecdote, someone sent me a bizarre and disturbing Facebook video, showing a professor at Montessori Professional College in Pasay City in the Philippines, throwing books and swearing at his teenage students. Then he starts hitting one of the teenagers. The clip had been filmed on a mobile phone, and was shared over 100,000 times. Twenty-three thousand people “Liked” it. The video is disturbing but darkly intriguing. Viral videos are meant to be about cats, not scarily unhinged professors.

I would use the two examples if ever I prepare a training manual on “How to spot a terrorist”; such a guide would be useful for the United Arab Emirates border police. The examples serve to illustrate a crucial difference that all young immigration officers must learn instinctively; the difference between a “security-risk” artist, and an artist. And the difference between a “security-risk” professor, and a professor. Unfortunately, the lack of such a vividly illustrated training manual has recently left UAE immigration police flummoxed.

In early April, New York University Professor Andrew Ross, president of his university’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, was labelled as a “security risk” by Abu Dhabi immigration officials. They had the decency to phone New York Airport ahead of time and tell them to pass on the message before Professor Ross’s flight took off.

Other figures, most likely within the UAE government, had hired a private investigator to go through the professor’s bins. Even with that expensive research, the immigration authorities had failed to recognise the tell-tale signs of a non-threatening professor. First, Ross is softly spoken, with a funky dress sense. Second, he’s associated with NYU, not the most extreme of academic establishments. Third, he’s interested in human rights. Human rights activists tend not to be violent types.

Then, earlier this month, there was the case of Ashok Sukumaran; he has “a long history of artistic work and commitments in the region including at the Sharjah Biennials (2009, 2011, 2013) and at events including Art Dubai and several prior editions of the March Meetings.”

Yet UAE immigration police, bereft of my training manual, got mixed-up again. Sukumaran, Mumbai-based and with a strong penchant for human rights, was also deemed to be a “security risk”.

Finally, artist Walid Raad also fell victim of the Abu Dhabi immigration authorities; clearing Raad to enter to attend the Sharjah Art Foundation’s March Meetings conference, they decided that he was a “security risk”, a modern day Caravaggio. Here’s his own simple and compelling account of how it went down:

“At Immigration in the Arrivals Terminal, UAE officials pulled me to the side and escorted me to a waiting room. Immigration officers came back two hours later to inform me that I was being denied entry for ‘security’ reasons. I was escorted to the Departures Terminal, where other officials re-arranged my travel back to the US. My passport was confiscated for the 24 hours I was in the airport. An airport employee escorted me to my departure gate on May 12, and handed me my passport before I boarded my return flight. I was not harassed. I was not threatened. In fact, it was all a simple immigration formality. What stayed with me were the words spoken in Arabic “they are expelling him” and “for security reasons.” Three days later, these words continue to anger and sadden me.”

“Gulf Labour hopes that this decision has been made in error,” reads a polite statement from the human rights organisation with which all three men work, in response to the news of the visa refusals. Gulf Labour has, since 2011, been mounting a series of increasingly audacious art productions and pro-human rights publicity stunts around the world. It is an international collective of artists and academics, none of whom, as far as I can tell, are terrorists.

They have a wide network of grassroots support across many countries, and have often garnered media attention. Their campaigning activity draws attention spectacularly to the human rights abuses most probably being perpetrated against Asian construction workers building the new Abu Dhabi branches of the Guggenheim, Louvre and British Museum on Abu Dhabi’s new “Saadiyat Island”. I say most probably, because it is hard to tell exactly; access to the construction sites is strictly controlled by the UAE authorities.

The Guggenheim, Louvre and British Museum are a Western trio of cultural behemoths. Despite their mega-brand status, all three remain completely silent on why activists fighting for basic human rights have been deemed “security risks” by the UAE authorities.

New York University also remains aloof from the struggle. The world-class university now has a lucrative Abu Dhabi branch, the construction of which attracted criticism from Gulf Labour. When the university’s own employee, Professor Andrew Ross, was denied entry to the UAE, it kept quiet. Moreover, it points proudly to a 2009 “Statement of Labour Values” which claims that the university would guarantee good treatment for the workers building its Abu Dhabi campus. Since then, though, the university has claimed that as it uses contractors and subcontractors so much, it simply can’t be held responsible if those third parties abuse workers.

Rich Western cultural institutions, facing a testing financial environment for donors, government support and their own business models, have in recent years turned to the Gulf to make ends meet. A small group of non-threatening artists and academics have been deemed to be “security risks” in a cack-handed attempt to stem criticism of the UAE’s human rights record. The lack of reaction from NYU, the Guggenheim, the Louvre and the British Museum shows that they appear to care more for their bottom line than they do for the welfare of the workers building their branches who are giving blood, sweat and tears to make that bottom line healthier. All four should ask for the “security risk” judgement to be re-assessed. I’d be happy to lend them a copy of my draft training manual to make the task easier.

Note: This item was updated at 10.54am BST on May 20th, 2015 to correct a factual error – the quote attributed to Ashok Sukumaran was actually given by Walid Raad.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.