Posted on 02/23/2006 12:59:55 AM PST by Stellar Dendrite
President George W. Bush justifies the sale of the private British company that manages six U.S. ports to the government owned Dubai Ports World, saying that the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a close ally of the U.S. in the war on terror. Indeed, the Jebel Ali terminal in Dubai transports at least 40% of US supplies to the troops in Iraq. Having the deepest port in the Persian Gulf, Dubai is critical for U.S. naval operations in the region. The UAE also provides air bases to support U.S. warplanes and stores materiel for U.S. forces. Moreover, it is also a major market for U.S. arms.
Not surprisingly, the President threatens to veto any legislation to block the deal and challenges lawmakers to “step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard" than the British company that ran the ports before.
There are many important differences. To begin with, a private company based in the U.K. a Western democracy with troops fighting along with U.S. soldiers in Iraq, contrasts sharply with the UAE, which supported al-Qaeda, sent 9/11 terrorists and funding, and continues to support Palestinian suicide bombers and particularly HAMAS, which President Bush calls “a terrorist organization.”
On July 27, 2005, the Palestinian Information Center carried a public HAMAS statement thanking the UAE for it’s “unstinting support.” The statement said: “We highly appreciate his highness Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (UAE president) in particular and the UAE people and government in general for their limitless support…that contributed more to consolidating our people's resoluteness in the face of the Israeli occupation".
The HAMAS statement continued: "the sisterly UAE had… never hesitated in providing aid for our Mujahid people pertaining to rebuilding their houses demolished by the IOF… The UAE also spared no effort to offer financial and material aids to the Palestinian charitable societies." Indeed, as documented by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S), HAMAS charitable societies,” are known as integral parts of the HAMAS infrastructure, and are outlawed by Israel and the U.S.
The HAMAS statement included a special tribute: "One can never forget the generous donations of the late Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan,” the father of the current UAE president. Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nahayan of Abu Dhabi, was the first Arab leader to understand the importance of waging economic Jihad against the West, and was the first to use oil as a political weapon following the Yom Kippur War in 1973. On the eve of the 1991 Gulf War he branded the United States “our number two enemy” after Israel.
The multi-billionaire Sheikh Zayed, was an early patron of the PLO, and from the 1970’s until his death in 2004, contributed millions of dollars to the terror agenda of the PLO, HAMAS and Islamic Jihad.
Human Appeal International, a UAE government-operated “charitable” organization, whose board includes the UAE president, funds HAMAS as well as other Palestinian organizations, “martyrs,” Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons and their families. The HAI’s modus operandi is to transfer money to the Palestinian Red Crescent Organization whose West Bank and Gaza branches are operated by HAMAS. They, in turn, distribute the money to HAMAS “charities.”
For example, according to the Orient Research Center in Toronto, Canada, the UAE “compensation” plan for the Palestinian intifada in 2001 included $3,000 for every Palestinian shaheed, $2,000 for his family, $1,500 for those detained by Israel, $1,200 for each orphan. In addition, families of those terrorists whose homes Israel demolished each received $10,000.
Also in 2001, in support of the martyr’s families in the Palestinian intifada, two telethons were organized in the UAE. “We Are All Palestinians” raised 135 million dirham, or $36.8 million, and “For Your Sake Palestine” raised 350 million dirham, or $95.3 million.
According to a detailed report on March 25, 2005, in the Palestinian daily Al Hayat al-Jadeeda, the UAE Friends Society transferred $475,000, through the UAE Red Crescent, to West Bank “charitable” organizations in Hebron, Jenin, Nablus and Tulkarem to distribute to the families of “martyrs,” orphans, imprisoned Palestinians and others.
The Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam reported on March 22, 2005, that in 2004 the UAE Red Crescent donated $2 million to HAMAS “charities” to be distributed to 3,158 terrorists’ orphans.
On February 15, 2005, the HAMAS website reported on funds transferred from HAI to two HAMAS front organizations in the West Bank, IQRA and Rifdah, which Israel had outlawed. And last July, Osama Zaki Muhammad Bashiti of Khan Younis in Gaza was arrested as he returned from the UAE, for often transferring funds of as much as $200,000 at a time to the Gaza HAMAS branch. The suicide bombing and attacks, including one mortar attack on Gush Katif, caused the death of 44 Israeli civilians and dozens of injuries.
The UAE support of HAMAS is in line with the agenda promoted by the late Sheikh Zayed. His Zayed Center for International Coordination and Followup, founded in 1999 as the official Arab League think-tank, was shuttered under international pressure in 2003. It championed Holocaust deniers like Thierry Meyssan and Roger Garaudy and provided a platform for anti-Western, anti-Christian and anti-Jewish extremists like Saudi economist Dr. Yussuf Abdallah Al Zamel, who blamed the war in Iraq on "radical Zionist and right-wing Christian" influence.
Although UAE foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan stated that the Emirates have been and remain a “strong ally of the U.S. in combating terrorism,” its continuing support of HAMAS and other Islamist organizations contradict his statement. This legitimately raises concerns about trusting U.S. ports to UAE management.
---- Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of American Center for Democracy (www.public-integrity.org), and author of Funding Evil; How terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It. Paul E Vallely, Major General, US Army Ret and Senior Military Analyst Fox News Channel and Co-author of Endgame -Blueprint for Victory in War on Terror.
ping
Gen. Franks may well be correct about our current relationship with the UAE. However it’s irrefutable that the UAE has supported terror in the past, that some percentage of it’s population do now, and that they’re in an unstable region. If they’re our stoutest ally in the region today, that still leaves legitimate questions on issues like security checks for staffing changes, security for documentation and manifests, and most important our ability to find local replacements should the UAE change their tune.
Perhaps the proper questions have been asked and answered, but if they have it’s clear to me that neither the President nor the Secretary of Defense have the answers. The handling of this from the veto threat to the next days admission that the President only knew about the deal for a couple days to Rumsfeld’s unwillingness to endorse the transaction due to lack of information is amazingly clumsy. The administration has blown it, and at this point it’s left to Congress to ask the questions and present the answers to the public. Yes, it will become a politicized forum, but they earned that role through the administration’s default.
On an only tangential issue, American’s can invest in the UAE only as minority partners. That’s a legitimate policy in developing countries. However when UAE national resources are being used for foreign investment, we should reciprocate. They should be required to operate with majority interest in US operations owned by US firms. Obviously, that issue won’t be raised in this context, but in general it should.
Also tangential, if it goes through I’d love to see the ability of local port authorities to renegotiate contracts. While the UAE may be the finest nation in the world, it’s worth remembering that five years ago the Port Authority of New York owned a pair of fine office buildings in lower Manhattan, 4 ½ years ago, at great cost of life, they didn’t. The operation was financed by UAE institutions, and UAE citizens participated in the operation. The Port Authority of New York shouldn’t be stuck with them for 30 years unwillingly.
I see the union charge made frequently. Can you point me to something that would substantiate the charge that currently unionized facilities would become non-union. I seriously doubt that's the case, this is a simple case of parent company ownership.
Left out of my last comment, were we in a conventional war, where movements of material were considered to be at serious risk, no one would dream of a transaction like this.
Not non-union, but more efficient use of employees, which would decrease the number of employees - many of whom are earning six figure incomes.
When: "Several Bush-administration security officials expressed concerns" over this deal, then maybe there are legitimate concerns.
According to Bill Gertz, it would appear there's a lot of uncertainty by govt officials, including Rumsfeld, who has said "he was reluctant to judge whether the management contracts posed national-security risks because he was not fully informed."
From Bill Gertz's article:
The problem is taxes and regulations. Home companies are taxed to death while foreign firms are not.
Insults add what to a debate? You don't like an opposing view so want them to be silent? Just what do you expect your flame-bait to accomplish?
The UAE govt is a dictatorship, composed of 7 ruling Supreme Council Members who are all Crown prince sheikhs correct?
The UAE has no representative govt. They also support the Palestinian Hamas organization, I believe.
http://www.uaeinteract.com/government/political_system.asp#A
Is Hamas not a terrorist organization?
Does th UAE recognize Israels right to exist? I don't believe they do.
http://www.uaeinteract.com/government/foreign_policy.asp
Personally, I think U.S. ports should all be operated by U.S owned companies. Call me a nationalist, if you want.
I don't buy that, there are plenty of reasons to have concerns about, and even oppose, the deal outside of union influence. Do you think David Horowitz is a union apologist.
I'll remain with Donald Rumsfeld on this, ...reluctant to judge whether the management contracts posed national-security risks because he was not fully informed, and yes, I'll have to hear the risks addressed to support it, the administration has blown the trust issue.
So, David Horowitz is wrong on this and General Tommy Franks is correct? (By the way, how old is this 'Tommy', 6, 8?) And neither one of them wrote the article, so we dismiss the actual General who co-wrote it? I'm confused by all this hero worship, personality cult and inability to think and talk ideas.
The spinners will have to do better than this on the timeline as King was screaming about this on Hannitys radio show last week right after he was briefed on it. That would have been the 13th or 14th. King said he was briefed on Tuesday the 13th. He was making noise at the height of the Cheney fracas so few heard him.
Meaning that if you want to accomplish it, don't broadcast the plan.
Then there is this little gem.
"Two weeks after 9/11, the UAE crown prince warned Washington not to strike “innocent” Muslims in Afghanistan, but instead focus on “Israeli terrorism.”
Some people don't like to look before they leap, do they? Or is that look before they repeat talking points/mantra/doxy?
I was able to have some fun with it. See #40 :)
So what if they are? Are only white-collar workers allowed to make big bucks?
If you had crane operators at half the salary and they unloaded 10,000 containers a year that breaks down to about $6 per container. Divide that over the cost of the goods inside the container and you may save about ten cents per item. It that really such a big deal to you?
My problem is that everyone on FR should be able to give an opinion and not suffer insults because someone else disagrees. FR isn't a "group think" forum. Silencing the opposition is Clintonian.
I'll go with Franks.
At least be honest about your reasoning. You'll go with whoever supports the Bush position----end of story. If Franks and Vallely's opinions on this were reversed, you'd go with Vallely.
Not a big deal at all. Nor would it be a big deal if they were to attempt to de-unionize. However, that would be irregular in a transaction like this where Dubai is buying a presumably profitable, ongoing business, not a troubled turnaround. In that context I'd want to know who they were replacing current workers with. What they pay their employees is a non issue.
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.