Isn't any country entitled to preserve its security and stability according to its perception as a state, not according to the perception of other parties and groups? Isn't any country that maintains absolute sovereignty over its territory entitled to deport and keep who it wants in what preserves its security and unity and solidarity? Isn't any country entitled to deport whoever it believes has a presence that poses a threat to it and to its internal structure and social fabric? The United Arab Emirates is facing a two-dimension campaign by the Lebanese press, especially the party-affiliated press, under the pretext of sectarianism, after the UAE deported some the Lebanese nationals working on its territory for security reasons. With this, the Lebanese newspapers in Beirut inaugurated a party of "scolding" against the UAE. I do not know why these people overlooked the UAE support for their country under many circumstances and crises. Why have the spokesmen for the deportees overlooked the number of Lebanese people hosted by the UAE and the aid it offered for many decades? Aren't there millions of Lebanese who found a safe and decent life in the UAE? Why were they "annoyed" just because a group, whose number does not exceed the fingers of one hand, was deported and why did they overlook the large numbers of Lebanese working in the UAE from all Lebanese sects? Didn't they wonder about the destiny of other Lebanese if the UAE decided to deport them? The international conventions stipulate that the concept of national sovereignty is an absolute right for every state, which is entitled to ratify the social and political regime it wants, and decide to implement it on its territory. It also has the right to preserve its security and stability and make decisions it deems necessary to achieve the safety of its people. This means that if any state has comments on any workers from other nationalities, for issues that undermine its security and stability and unity, then it has the right to deport them, a right secured by international laws and the rights of sovereignty over its territory. Once the Lebanese deportees returned to Beirut, a wave of accusations and fabrications were launched against the UAE, either because they wanted to go back, or because they wanted to get even with its decision, as though it committed a huge crime against them and placed them behind iron bars with no electricity or water, while in fact they were retuned to their parents and countries without undermining their humanity. Three years ago, Britain decided to deport hundreds of thousands of Eastern European nationals for reasons that concern Britain itself. These countries did not object to the deportation of its workers because they know that this is an absolute British right. Meanwhile, the United States deports thousands of Mexicans every year. These countries are aware of the complete concept of "state sovereignty" and "state interest", aside from outbidding and accusations, as there weren't mutual campaigns in their media, or debates and charges leveled from here and there targeting the intentions of the UAE, considering that the issue involved the concerned state, its security, stability, and sovereignty. A source has reported to a Lebanese newspaper that the investigation branch in the passport control department in the UAE summoned him, and one of the officers asked him for information about Hizballah and the moves of the Lebanese community. When the Lebanese source answered that he does not have any information – as he said – the officer directly told him that he is deported from the UAE. The source further said that what happened to him was almost applied with all the deportees. I do not know how we could believe such an accusation from someone who spent 22 years in the UAE and was never asked for any "secret" information for more than two decades. Then, suddenly, the passport officers decided to ask him about "intelligence" information which they were unaware of for all these years! Shouldn't this person – instead of "leveling" accusations and giving them a sectarian aspect against a country that respected and honored him and opened its arms for him for so long – thank the UAE rather than hate it and its people? Two days ago, the UAE officially informed the Lebanese Government that the decision to deport a number of Lebanese working there "has nothing to do with their sectarian affiliation because thousands of Shiites are still working and living there." Beyond no doubt, the UAE is entitled to protect its territory against any attempts to turn it into a spot for factionism, sectarianism, and confessionalism, or a spot for the birth of new political parties and movements on its territory. I believe that the UAE is not in need for this explanation, and it is enough for it to overlook these fabrications and accusations considering that it is a country that maintains absolute sovereignty over its territory, and works according to what achieves the interest of its people and preserves its security and stability, and because it alone is entitled to decide who to deport and who to keep on its territory. * Al Hayat, 05/10/09
