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 agree. As I posted yesterday, let us recall the infamous picture of Secretary Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand.
We cannot forget that the stakes could not be higher. It is not hyperbole to say that the future of Western Civilization is at stake--these people are fighting the Crusades, part II. Beyond the U.S., there is no other country with both the will and the means to protect it.
The UAE is currently a terrific ally in the WOT? Great, let's reward them. But in some other way.
Well, Americans haven't been killing anybody, they've been talking and trying to find out the truth.
And for the people who are lashing out at the "hysterics", well, even the President had no idea what was going on.
Maybe there is nothing to worry about. But within the span of a few short days, a bombshell that nobody understood was dropped on us.
I don't think people have to get angry at each other just because they have differences of opinions that are based on sketchy information (I've been to Dubai, etc.).
And so far, I still think it's a bad idea. It is unfortunate that a (current) ally is being mistreated, but that is as a result of the current system, which apparently didn't require approval from Homeland Security (at the least).
Wow, that is a great point.
But again, the blame lies in the system that is in place. Is there some reason that after 9/11, deals involving ports weren't required to be approved at the highest levels?
I couldn't agree more. Well said.
Your Star Wars analogy is entirely appropriate and exactly how I described it to my wife. I have never been in a more internationally diverse country in my life. Sit down in a local restaurant and you'd swear you were in some cheesy UN advertisement. Every single person seemed to be wearing styles of clothes representative of a different country. There was even a guy wearing what looked like a Cossack outfit complete with a black sheepskin hat.
"It's still Islamic, and Dubaians still abide in the Koran, right?"
Not only that, it is also Arab. But it is an Arab and Islamic success story. If we have any hope at all of the Middle East moving beyond an Islamic cesspool of poverty and terrorist incubation, it is countries like the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar and more and more Kuwait that will have to lead the pack. There are lightyear's of difference between Islamic countries like Syria and Saudi Arabia, and the UAE and Bahrain. It is very difficult to tell the difference between downtown Dubai and downtown Singapore or even Tokyo. The UAE represents the next wave in cultural development in the Middle East. They have moved beyond an oil based economy and are looking toward the future. And its working.
"Is there evidence the UAE has supported terrorism? Al Qaeda?" etc.
If there is, I'm not aware of any after 2001, and it is certainly overwhelmed by incredible support they've provided us in the War on terror. Remember that the Al Qaeda propaganda involving the UAE that is being circulated by the media is actually an ultimatum from Al Qaeda to the UAE demanding they stop cooperating with the US in the War on Terror.
"Been involved in international money laundering, and third-party arms trading?"
No more so than most European nations.
"Does not recognize Israel as a sovereign nation?"
That has never stopped us from having diplomatic or economic ties with any other nation. Why should it now?
How about they also have Israel open up an embassy in UAE, and they enter into a formal agreement recognizing their right to exist.
Yes, that would go a long way.
If you take oil out of the equation there would basically be no capitalism there at all, nor would there be "the highest income per person in the world" in the world. Look at Muslim countries that don't have oil, in contrast the US was a wealthy capitalistic country before oil.
In short, "the highest income per person in the world" is not because of their society, it is because of oil money. They didn't look for oil, they didn't drill the first wells, they didn't pump the first oil, it was someone else, and now because of capitalism from the outside, not inside, they can afford the wealthy welfare state they have.
thanks for your post. i am glad to hear from somebody who has done business there.
saudi arabia has often been our ally, but many influential saudis have supported al qaeda.
i would bet that there are plenty of people in the UAE who support al qaeda and hamas.
stalin was our ally during WW2. i guess some people would have let him take over the operation of our ports. after all, if we criticized him, we would have hurt the russians feelings!
keep posting!
I agree, and I've posted before that this deal possibly sends a very demoralizing message to the troops currently fighting in the Middle East. That is another reason why GW's veto talk really disturbs me.
Lol, unbelievable, eh?
Thanks for an informative, honest, and sane response.
I'm currently collecting articles on this topic, since it seems Congress (my Rep. is Peter King and my Senator is Schumer) will be looking into the UAE deal and larger topic of port security. I welcome corrective input.
I like the fact that the UAE is competing with the Chinese, especially since the (partly) Chinese government run company (COSCO -- Clinton's friends) is making moves to increase their stake in world shipping and in running ports.
Is COSCO the world's second largest shipping company?
Did COSCO "acquire" a large company that is expert at handling port business? (COSTACO)
Is COSCO involved in a deal to buy a stake in a Greek port?
Did COSCO get a special exemption from US laws "discriminating" against state-owned shipping companies?
I noticed, yesterday, that he's pretending he isn't changing his position.
i don't think we should make our allies "look like dirt bags". but we should run our own ports, airports, and borders (without smearing our allies).
many of our allies have mixed histories.
we need to keep separate the importance of our security and the importance of not smearing our allies.
"This guy" is hchutch who use to post here.
stalin was our ally during WW2. should we have turned our ports over to the soviets?
Thank you. :)
i don't think we have to smear our ally, the UAE. if they don't allow Jews to enter the country (and i don't know that this is true), they don't have elections, and apparently they have supported hamas and the talaban, their actions speak for themselves.
i have read on FR that the UAE supported the talaban and still supports hamas.
we can do business with such allies, but we don't need to let them run port operations.
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.