Posted on 02/25/2006 3:00:55 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
February 24, 2006: The recent controversy over the acquisition of the British firm Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, by Dubai Ports World, a state-run company in the United Arab Emirates, has been largely a matter of heat opposed to light. This is largely because of a number of myths that have quickly circulated throughout the blogosphere. These myths have led to a lot of controversy that has cast one of the strongest American allies in the Persian Gulf in a poor light that is undeserved.
First, a look at the United Arab Emirates is in order. This is a country that has been a long-standing ally of the United States since 1971. The UAE was part of the coalition to liberate Kuwait in 1991, and also has supported the United States in the war on terror (including, among other things, providing access to a deep-water berth that can accommodate aircraft carriers, use of a training facility for air-to-air training facility, airfields, and logistics support). It is a country that has proven largely inhospitable to al-Qaeda (instead, the focus is on business), sent forces to Afghanistan to protect the construction of a hospital that they donated and built, and also has sent humanitarian assistance to Iraq while also providing a location for training Iraqi police. In 2002, the UAE also captured a major al-Qaeda figure, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who was involved in the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and handed him over to the United States despite threats from the terrorist organization. After Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, the UAE donated $100 million for the relief efforts. Both Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and General Peter Pace have described the relationship the United States has with United Arab Emirates as "very close" and "superb". It would be interesting to know what sort of information Michelle Malkin has that would override the judgment of Rumsfeld and Pace. Her characterization of the United Arab Emirates as "demonstrably unreliable" is not just factually challenged, it is slap in the face to the strongest ally the United States has in the Persian Gulf.
One of the other things that has been ignored in the anti-UAE diatribes from Malkin is the fact that the United Arab Emirates is a Middle Eastern country where religious tolerance is the rule. The UAE's constitution guarantees freedom of religion (albeit it declares Islam as the official religion), and largely permits religious freedom. In 2003, the UAE shut down the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-up, which was publishing material that promoted anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.
Second, nothing will really change at the ports, particularly with regards to security. Security will remain the province of the United States Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security. In another fact ignored by the scare campaign, the UAE has the only port in the Middle East that is part of the Container Security Initiative. Dubai Ports World has also agreed to mandatory participation in other programs to improve security and to prevent the illegal shipment of nuclear materials, and will also provide documents on internal operations on demand and has agreed to cooperate in future investigations. The deal was also scrutinized by the intelligence community, which found no problems. The only thing that changes hands is who owns the company that will handle the day-to-day operations (often performed by American longshoremen – usually unionized). Dubai Ports World also bought out the port operations of CSX in 2004 – with no real issues.
Third, several claims have been made regarding connections to 9/11, specifically the fact that two of the hijackers were from the UAE. First, none of the critics have any proof that either the government of the UAE or Dubai Ports World was involved in the attack. By the standard of these critics, the United Kingdom would be held responsible for Richard Reid, or Germany would be responsible for the Hamburg cell that planned the attack. Second, the United Arab Emirates have stepped up efforts to make money laundering less easy after Dubai was used as a financial conduit for the attacks (again, there is no proof that the UAE or DPW were active participants in the laundering). It should also be noted that at least two Americans have worked with al-Qaeda (Johnny Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla) as well.
The last thing to consider is that in the day and age of the Internet, this debate is not staying inside the United States. Past irresponsible comments (like those by Senator Richard Durbin concerning Guantanamo Bay) have spread across the world very quickly. The scurrilous comments directed at the United Arab Emirates by Michelle Malkin have the potential to assist al-Qaeda recruiting in that country, and thus do more damage than the port deal would have done.
I love Michelle Malkin, but she's so very wrong in this case that it's not funny. Spreading hysterical nonsense about an ally doesn't help the WOT. In fact, she and others of her ilk have only helped the dems's efforts to promote a "Arabs = Enemies" fear, which sure isn't going to aid our fight.
I agree with this guy.
OK, everybody get ready for the violins.
We treated those Arabs so cruel and inhuman.
Cry me a freakin river.
I only hope that is reflected in the public consciousness, but I fear it won't.
I'd say this guy's arguments are just about as unsubstantiated as those purported by Malkin. I've worked and done business in Dubai. They are demonstrably unreliable. They have three different legal systems. Contract law means nothing. All it takes is a "Will of Allah" and you can flush your contract down the toilet...and if some Sheik wants something, its obviously the "Will of Allah." Oh, and I love the "largely permits religious freedom" part. The whole time I was there I never saw a church nor could I find a Bible in their book stores. Should we touch on their democratic form of government, free elections, equal treatment of women? What about just the equal treatment of expats? Once you get past your probationary period you're a virtual slave there and can't leave the country without the permission of your Sheik sponsor. By the way, Zayed was the crown prince. I'm sure giving them the contract to operate our ports is another step towards democracy in the middle east -- in a fool's eye.
A lot of people don't need to be in this big tent, lest they piss on their protectors when they pee their pants.
We did mistreat Dubai, as this article shows is a strong ally. You can dismiss our allies in the region all you want, I prefer adults who can admit errors. I hope Malkin has such an approach, as opposed to silly smearing of all Arabs. That kind of attitude sure isn't going to help in the WOT.
This is a good article.
will you look at post#6 and tell me if it's credible. Thank you.
Actually, it's the other sides attitude that is not helping in the "war on terror".
The first and most essential part of a war is recogizing and admitting that somebody wants to kill you.
Ignore it all you want. And be ready to apologize to good Americans and their (dead) sons and daughters because you couldn't see the obvious.
Since you have experience there, which parts in the piece are untrue? More to the point, there isn't much you've asserted that disputes Dubai's value in the WOT. Frankly, if we only work with countries that share our values, we'll be working alone.
I've removed those parts of the article which aren't assertions of fact--so which of the following facts aren't true? Thanks for your input:From the article:
This is a country that has been a long-standing ally of the United States since 1971.
The UAE was part of the coalition to liberate Kuwait in 1991, and also has supported the United States in the war on terror (including, among other things, providing access to a deep-water berth that can accommodate aircraft carriers, use of a training facility for air-to-air training facility, airfields, and logistics support).
It is a country that has proven largely inhospitable to al-Qaeda (instead, the focus is on business),
sent forces to Afghanistan to protect the construction of a hospital that they donated and built,
and also has sent humanitarian assistance to Iraq while also providing a location for training Iraqi police.
In 2002, the UAE also captured a major al-Qaeda figure, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who was involved in the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and handed him over to the United States despite threats from the terrorist organization.
After Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, the UAE donated $100 million for the relief efforts. ....
In 2003, the UAE shut down the Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow-up, which was publishing material that promoted anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.
Security will remain the province of the United States Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security.
the UAE has the only port in the Middle East that is part of the Container Security Initiative.
Dubai Ports World has also agreed to mandatory participation in other programs to improve security and to prevent the illegal shipment of nuclear materials, and will also provide documents on internal operations on demand and has agreed to cooperate in future investigations.
The deal was also scrutinized by the intelligence community, which found no problems.
The only thing that changes hands is who owns the company that will handle the day-to-day operations (often performed by American longshoremen – usually unionized). Dubai Ports World also bought out the port operations of CSX in 2004 – with no real issues.
none of the critics have any proof that either the government of the UAE or Dubai Ports World was involved in the attack.
the United Arab Emirates have stepped up efforts to make money laundering less easy after Dubai was used as a financial conduit for the attacks (again, there is no proof that the UAE or DPW were active participants in the laundering).
The totalitarian monarchies of the middle east are nice to America only because they are afraid of being overthrown.
Which is why the port controversy is more about the unknown chaotic murderous future of the middle east, not about how good they are behaving today.
OK, that's two posts of only emotion and assertion and silly labelling. You can retype all the smarmy slogans you want, if that makes you feel good, but you just look silly if you continue to bring nothing to the discussion. Please feel free to do so, though, as it's very revealing, though it's too bad you don't want to discuss the issue and just accuse people who differ from you in complicity with terrorism.
Yeah, but you can get a beer there.
I've been to Dubai, too. I've never said it was Heaven on Earth.
What allies does America have, who can't be made to look like dirt bags with enough opposition research?
But they've been building up their business interests and tourism trade just so they can have a good day or two's pleasure at seeing a nuke go off in the US just before their entire nation is flattened. Makes sense, eh? (eye roll)
Great point. Can't improve on that, this thread's done its job.
Agreed.
Much of her material (and she's by no means alone in this) has been fact-challenged.
Innuendo, speculation dressed up as fact, etc.
The greatest infraction was her lengthy wrap-up of supporting opinion (on Wednesday?), but which rested on bold statements with no factual backup or specific examples. Frank Gaffney - whom I normally admire and who was cited by Malkin - also took the line of general accusation with no specifics. I'd already concluded that there was little factual basis to be against the DP World deal, but this piece really sewed it up for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.