Money, money, money...

I just read an article on Time.com that talks about the inverse relationship of oil wealth and democracy, citing Bush's visit to the UAE as the latest example. In the Emirates, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan dropped some srrrious bling on Dubya. (That's right, I went there). Anyone who's been to the UAE, like me for not an example, can also testify to the decadence of the place.

"It may now be possible to propose a corollary theory: countries that greet American presidents with the gaudiest displays of oil wealth tend to be the least democratic. In Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed presented Bush with an obscene necklace consisting of a number of increasingly large solid gold stars encrusted with scores of diamonds, rubies and emeralds. Though Bush talked up his "Freedom Agenda" there, his aides dodged questions about the fact that 50% of the country's parliament is appointed by Sheikh Khalifa, who is also the lifetime "President." Saudi Arabia, the most repressive of all the countries Bush visited on his trip, tried to outdo the "President Sheikh" Monday evening with a jewel-laden gold medallion dangling from a chain encrusted with rubies and emeralds."

However, as the article goes on, this isn't to say that all countries with oil resources are doomed. Its only when oil dominates a state's economy that the correlation becomes stronger.

So my interesting thought of the day, reminscent of an earlier post I made about Russia, if populations feel that they are economically better off, who cares what kind of government is in power? I don't know too much about any democratic movements in UAE, but from all outside appearances, everyone seems fairly happy. I'm not saying authoritarianism is acceptable if your people are richer than before, I'm just musing on how relevant Fosse is in this particular area of foreign policy.

Watch this video with Liza Minelli and Joel Gray singing the song "Money" from Cabaret. Maybe you'll start singing it at your next international development class.