The United Arab Emirates enact a law against terrorism

The fear of contagion of the jihadist threat causes the adoption of strict measures against terrorism in the order of the state of the United Arab Emirates. The possibility of the extension right into the country of the violence of radical extremists has necessitated the promulgation of the law on crimes of terrorism, which involves a series of very severe penalties ranging from capital judgment, to rigorous imprisonment and to a number of financial penalties very high. Particularly innovative is the norm that equates the terrorist act planned or carried out both in the country of the UAE and abroad. With this law you want to protect both state that the legal personality of the same nation. The sentence is scheduled for the financing of terrorism, kidnapping, trafficking in human beings and money laundering, all of which have favored the growth of organizations such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which is precisely the context most feared by the ruling class of the country, which is one of the few in the Arab world not being hit by popular protests games with the Arab Spring. The promulgation of this law indicates the growth of a sensitivity to the topic of terrorism and the fear of being invested. In the Arabian Peninsula a provision similar legislation was adopted also by Saudi Arabia. In this case, it was almost a real admission of liability, after the Arab country had funded terrorist groups that operate in Syria and he was born the army of the caliphate. Saudi Arabia still has triggered a defensive system with the deployment of a large number of troops along its border. It is tangible signs of how the phenomenon of terrorism is now seen also in areas that might seem immune to these dangers and that they fear for their own balance. At the same time, in fact, have been intensified actions against internal groups close to the Muslim Brotherhood, seen as a potential danger to the ability to stir the soul. The Gulf monarchies have established especially close relations with the new Egyptian government, seen as a bulwark against the invasion ultra religious. This has resulted in ties between states virtually dictatorial, replicating the structure present before the Arab Spring, which maintained the political balance by force. It remains significant that these alliances are blessed, albeit discreetly from the USA, which still recognizes as functional to their own interests, and also to those in the West, a limitation of democracy in the Arab world. On the other hand, with few exceptions, the situation is not any better, and indeed the imposition of Sharia law, applied in an increasingly violent worsened, if possible, the conditions of the population. However, the fact that deeply religious regimes are entered in order to fear a contagion of extremist must impose a reflection on why movements like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant question levies so much acclaim from the civilian population, without which, despite the considerable means at their disposal, they would not achieve the current results. The idea of the caliphate as a condition of religious supremacy is certainly an instrument of strong consensus, as well as the order imposed by filling a vacuum of power that went from Syrian territory to the Iraqi Sunnis. These are the very basics that make us fear the subversion of the states of the Arabian Peninsula, so that they would be moderate in our eyes of Westerners far, although it is highly illiberal and despotic states. But the possibility that the contagion will spread jihadist in these countries is even worse than the current situation. Hardly the situation evolve in a democratic sense, but perhaps some errors on the level of international strategy will not be repeated.