Our Kind of Emirs?

Human Events ^ | March.1, 2006 | Terry Jeffrey

[Reagan Man]

Why isn’t President Bush pressuring the United Arab Emirates to become the United Arab Democracies? Doesn’t our security depend on it?

If you could know for certain that UAE officials no longer consort with Osama bin Laden (as The 9/11 Commission Report -- see pages 137-139 -- says they did before September 11, 2001), and if you weren’t inalterably opposed on free-market grounds to government ownership of industry, then Bush’s support for permitting a UAE-government-owned entity to manage some U.S. port facilities might be a defensible exercise in realpolitik. It cannot be squared, however, with the President’s argument that our security depends on pushing democracy around the world and especially in the Middle East.

The ports deal enriches UAE’s authoritarian rulers.

Bush’s realistic action here rebuts his ideological rhetoric. Forget democracy. These emirs, he has apparently decided, are our kind of emirs.

Last Tuesday, Bush lauded the Emirates as our “ally in the war on terror” and said it “would send a terrible signal to friends and allies” if we prevented them from managing some of our port operations. Three days later, he gave a major speech discussing “how our efforts to spread liberty and democracy throughout the broader Middle East are progressing.” But he said not a word about spreading liberty and democracy to the Emirates. What kind of signal did that send?

Bush’s rhetoric was sweeping. “Our freedom agenda is based on a clear premise: the security of our nation depends on the advance of liberty in other nations,” he said. “To secure the peace of the world, we seek the end of tyranny in the world.”

His benchmarks for measuring Middle Eastern regimes were specific. “Our efforts in the broader Middle East have been guided by a clear principle,” Bush said. “Democracy takes different forms in different cultures. Yet, all cultures, in order to be successful, have certain common truths: rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, a free economy, freedom of women, and the freedom to worship.”

So, how do the emirs measure up? Judging by the State Department’s most recent Country Report on Human Rights (published in 2005) they fall far short. Do the Emirates have “democracy”? “There are no democratic elections or institutions, and citizens do not have the right to form political parties,” says State.

Do the Emirates have “rule of law”? “The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary,” says State, “however, its decisions were subject to review by the political leadership.”

Do the Emirates have “freedom of speech”? “The law prohibits, under penalty of imprisonment, criticism of the government, ruling families, and friendly governments, as well as other statements that threaten social stability,” says State. The government “approves the appointment of editors.”

Do the Emirates have “freedom of assembly”? “The Constitution does not provide for freedom of assembly or association,” says State.

Do the Emirates have a “free economy”? “The country has a free market economy,” says State. But based on State’s own report, I don’t believe it. Dubai Ports World isn’t UAE’s only state-owned enterprise. In a country where oil and gas is the dominant industry, “[e]ach emirate independently owns local oil and gas production.” Also, UAE must have one of the world’s most extensive guest-worker programs: “98% of the private sector workforce is foreign.”

“The law does not specifically prohibit trafficking in persons,” says State, “ … In practice, trafficking in women and girls used as prostitutes, and very young boys used as camel jockeys, continued to be serious problems.”

What about “freedom of women”? “Custom dictates that a husband can bar his wife, minor children and adult unmarried daughters from leaving the country,” say State. “All male citizens can pass citizenship to their children at birth, whereas female citizens married to noncitizens cannot pass citizenship to their children.”

Then there is what the President calls “freedom of worship” -- which differs from the 1st Amendment’s “free exercise” of religion, I suspect, in that it doesn’t include the freedom to choose your religion. It is a “freedom” carefully tailored to fit under the Big Tent pitched at camp meetings of the global crusade for democracy. The UAE “prohibits Muslims from converting to other religions,” says State. “Although non-Muslims in the country are free to practice their religion”--n.b. freedom of worship -- “they are subject to criminal prosecution, imprisonment, and deportation if found proselytizing or distributing religious literature to Muslims.”

Sharing the Truth that sets men free is illegal in UAE.

Some day, we must hope, that will change. For now, even a U.S. president vocally committed to a global crusade for freedom and democracy, is acting according to his own understanding of the reality that to defend our country against terrorists we must sometimes make allies with regimes that are neither free nor democratic.

[Reagan Man]

PING

[MplsSteve]

Interesting article.

Have you read Andrew McCarthy's article that was posted on National Review Online? He covers a lot of the same territory - but it's still a good read.

Here's the link:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200603010741.asp

My reservations about the Ports deal continue to grow and grow.

[jeremiah]

I bet we will be able to count the substantive arguments against this articles premise on one hand. Or maybe none at all. Usually those supporting the ports deal, just read the playbook, or call names.

This deal on the ports, would allow the Country and its rulers, to operate port terminals in America. Not companies based overseas, but countries that are sovereign nations.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>My reservations about the Ports deal continue to grow and grow.

Agreed. Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

[Reagan Man]

What goes on in the Middle East, should stay in the Middle East. We don't need more problems over here.

[Stellar Dendrite]

ping

[Carolinamom]

Right out of Buchanan's notebook of talking points.

[Stellar Dendrite]

more racism and bigotry from reagan man... /sarcasm

[Reagan Man]

Like old Terry Jeffrey, old Reagan Man remains a staunch advocate for strict conservatism, over here and over there. Thank you kindly.

[bert]

Irrstional irrelevanvies. A collossal out pouring of smoke.

[jeremiah]

No substantial rebuttal I see, just words from the talking points distributed by the pro side.

[Stellar Dendrite]

here's more information, don't know if you've seen this one yet:

UAE has the same ranking on political rights and civil liberties as Iran.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2005&country=6856

[Borax Queen]

What about “freedom of women”? “Custom dictates that a husband can bar his wife, minor children and adult unmarried daughters from leaving the country,” say State. “All male citizens can pass citizenship to their children at birth, whereas female citizens married to noncitizens cannot pass citizenship to their children.”

Sad and disgusting bump

[truth_seeker]

Most likely the Emir's subject would elect bin Laden's clone, if they could.

We should confront this fact sooner, rather than later. So we can get prepared correctly.

We may need a procurement order for WMDs sufficient to break previous records.

[untrained skeptic]

When should we as a country work with other countries to encourage change, and when should we just refuse to cooperate with other countries until they do everything we think they should do?

I've seen lots of articles from Human Events mocking Bush's attempts to spread democracy. However, if Bush works with a country that isn't a Democracy, he gets slammed for that as well.

People in the UAE have considerably more freedoms than they do in most other Arab countries. They are not a democracy. Their people are not free to express themselves by our standards. However, it's much better than other Arab countries.

So should we work with the UAE to improve on such issues? Should we work with the UAE to combat terrorism? Should we take our common goals and use them to encourage them to change over time? Or should we shun them and forgo any mutually beneficial cooperation that may help us and encourage them to change?

It's easy to criticize. It's hard to make real choices and do what's best.

[notigar]

None of this stuff matters to that crowd. I did have a fun time going back into peoples posts who are for the deal and finding things like "there is no moderate muslim", etc. The twisting people can do when they are given an order is mind-boggling.

[Reagan Man]

Btw, you were right... so far anyway. ;^)

[notigar]

"any mutually beneficial cooperation" doesn't have to mean the port deal.

[Light Speed]

Bush Family Ties to the UAE

DOBBS: President Bush's family and members of the Bush administration have long-standing business connections with the United Arab Emirates, and those connections are raising new concerns and questions tonight in some quarters about why the president is defying his very own party leadership and his party in defending the Dubai port deal.

CHRISTINE ROMANS: The oil-rich United Arab Emirates is a major investor in The Carlyle Group, the private equity investment firm where President Bush's father once served as senior adviser and is a who's who of former high-level government officials. Just last year, Dubai International Capital, a government-backed buyout firm, invested in an $8 billion Carlyle fund.

Another family connection, the president's brother, Neil Bush, has reportedly received funding for his educational software company from the UAE investors. A call to his company was not returned.

Then there is the cabinet connection. Treasury Secretary John Snow was chairman of railroad company CSX/. After he left the company for the White House, CSX sold its international port operations to Dubai Ports World for more than a billion dollars.

In Connecticut today, Snow told reporters he had no knowledge of that CSX sale. "I learned of this transaction probably the same way members of the Senate did, by reading about it in the newspapers."

Another administration connection, President Bush chose a Dubai Ports World executive to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. David Sanborn, the former director of Dubai Ports' European and Latin American operations, he was tapped just last month to lead the agency that oversees U.S. port operations.