The Gulf states will win the war against Covid-19. When the dust settles, they will take a few knocks and bring in plane-loads of workers from ever more desperate countries to restart the economy. What then of the ones who now live here? They can be dispensed with.
Over the decades, GCC states have used their wealth to master and fine-tune a systemically racist model of immigration that primarily suits their needs without fully taking into consideration the impact it has on the workers and the countries they come from.
What started as an organic way of managing foreign labour has developed into a structure that refuses to recognise labour beyond its utilitarian value, and when that value ceases to exist, the labour – and with that the worker – does too.
They will win this war, because the Gulf states have always been good at social distancing. There are services that are earmarked for ‘migrant workers’ – that blanket term for dark-skinned expatriates from the global south who live and work alone, forced into celibacy, earning less than a fair living wage. This segregation is not questioned or at best is accepted as an unideal necessity. The social distance between ‘migrants’ and the rest pre-dates Covid-19, and will outlast it too – it protects the latter from any pang of remorse about their role in this discrimination.
Criticism of abusive practices in the Gulf has only aided and abetted the system, by colouring within the lines of what Gulf states have deemed as the norm.
Let’s take a moment to look at the sectors that are shutting down. These are the ones where the higher income, affluent class, have to interact with lower-income migrants – anything that is transactional, like retail and hospitality is closed for business. Whereas with everything else, where lower-income workers are only a risk to each other, it is business as usual. They will be locked down and quarantined in their camps and bussed to work sites to keep building the Gulf’s glitzy dreams, which are somehow considered essential and vital, and worth risking workers’ health for. The intention clearly is not to put those with privilege and social capital at risk of infection.
To be fair to these countries, almost every lockdown and curfew has been unavoidable, because it was the quickest way to get people to toe the line and stay home - Opens in new tab. What we can and should hold them responsible for is the systemic ghettoising of certain nationalities and certain classes of workers which automatically renders them the most vulnerable in any crisis, be it a health one or an economic one. Here’s the flip side. This kind of model has also helped them to isolate or segregate and to manipulate quarantine directives. So the real fear is, no lesson will be learnt. At least not one that will make Gulf societies more equitable.
It would be comedic if it weren’t so dire – to keep sending workers back into an environment that is hospitable to the virus, not to the individual.
Read the regular Covid-19 bulletins from these countries, and read them once more. One group is advised to stay home. Stay safe. Report if unwell. Get tested if exposure to an infected person is suspected.
With the other group, it’s about containing them en masse in one large area, in crowded rooms, waiting for daily handouts of food and water. Regular testing to see if they are infected, temperature taken daily and swabs when necessary. If there is suspicion of infection, then the worker is removed from that space and isolated. If not, he is sent back to the same dreary labour camps. Rinse. Repeat.
Symptoms appear when the person has already been a carrier for several days, but they can be tested only when there are symptoms. It would be comedic if it weren’t so dire – to keep sending workers back into an environment that is hospitable to the virus, not to the individual.
What happens when a worker tests positive, is treated and then released? Where and what are they going back to? Rinse. Repeat.

Acute discriminatory housing policies and services are actually working in favour of these States. Yes, the large numbers of infected are a problem. But it's a problem they can dispense with quite easily. Meanwhile, the workers will help with ‘business continuity’ – they will be deployed at construction sites and to clean public spaces, until they physically cannot.
Every day you hear of massive jumps in the numbers of infected - Opens in new tab across these countries. Bad news first: Yes, stage 3 community transmission is in full swing. Good news: it’s just the migrants, so contain them, because you can’t contain the spread, and then send them back when you can’t contain them any longer.
Several of the GCC states are planning mass repatriation of workers, with only perfunctory temperature-taking before they leave. The rich countries pass the buck to origin countries who are already buckling under the weight of the Covid-19 crisis, and whose healthcare systems are ill-equipped to manage the influx of possible fresh cases and the resultant community spread.
The Gulf is winning with its segregation. This won’t fly in other wealthy countries, where there are more mixed neighbourhoods and mixed-use public facilities and amenities, mass public transport, and where most workers earn a fair living wage and can partake more fully in what the country has to offer.
Here they can set up a temporary hospital just for workers, built by the workers, in the vicinity of sprawling, squalid labour camps, and no one will bat an eyelid at the discrimination. It will be seen as practical, convenient.
And that has been the problem all along.
In the name of practicality, GCC states have gotten away with gross human rights violations. Their consultants wax eloquent on business continuity and disaster management, in PowerPoint presentations billed at millions of dollars, that provide a sheen for and give a spin on this practicality. They highlight obvious abuses - Opens in new tab and provide predictable solutions aimed at nothing more than deflecting attention for a while.
The immediate counter-argument to criticism of the Gulf states has always been (and continues to be, even more so now) that it is better here than in their home countries. An argument that is deliberately blind to nuances of social engagement and capital. One does not recognise aspirational migration if you are poor or uneducated, so the assumption is their suffering is for their overall good.

