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.
your insults are almost as weak as your posts!
people are claiming there is no danger in turning our ports over to allies.
that is the issue i am responding to.
my point is that there can easily be danger in turning over the ports to an ally, not that stalin and dubai are the same. (for one thing, stalin was a ruler, and dubai is am emirate).
So you are calling GEN Franks a traitor?
Such bravery!
thank you for that post. i am beginning to suspect that some of the people on this thread who think dubai and the uae are allies in the same mold as britain have some undeclared agenda.
it is interesting to note the recency (2005-6) of the source discussing the the friendly help given by dubai to HAMAS!!!!!
some allies!
My only connection with the business community is as a consumer of beverages proscribed under General Order No. 1 and of the services of the hospitality industry.
What exactly is your relatiionship with the Democratic Party?
As if to heighten anxiety, it has been reported in several al-Qaeda manifestoes calling down destruction on America and includes a lengthy treatise on the devastation an atom bomb would wreak on lower Manhattan through a port.
"So you are calling GEN Franks a traitor? "
I believe that he is at the least a traitor to his own conscience and his own common sense. I am sure he must have a motive.
And everybody who follows bin Laden's instructions and heightens their anxiety are doing exactly what he wants while claiming to have only the best interests of America at heart. That kind of patriotism didn't work for Charles Lindbergh, or America.
i think only US owned and US based companies should run US ports. i don't think countries that support Hamas should be allowed to run anything in the US. i don't think the chinese govt should run US ports.
i would only make an exception for the brits, who have been long-term allies.
my relationship with the democratic party is that i vote against them.
what do you think about dubai hosting the web site for Hamas?
pretty reliable ally!
Maybe only US owned and US based ships should be allowed in US ports.
no, i just don't believe in handing over security-related areas to foreign countries who recently supported terrorists.
has dubai denounced Hamas yet?
Dubai hosts HAMAS' website or an ISP in Dubai hosts it? If what you say is true, that is regrettable. There are some pretty disgusting web sites hosted by ISP's in America, too. What do you think about that?
You're the expert on HAMAS on this thread. You tell me.
"Are we a friend of Israel or not? Does the UAE trade with Israel? If no, why not? The answer of course is no. The why is because they hate Israel and seek it's destruction. So exactly how can the UAE be our ally in the war on terror while privately seeking and promoting the destruction of Israel? That's some "ally."
Ding!
I have yet to see a sufficient response to that.
And as long as you get to decide what is sufficient, you never will.
I don't disagree. It seems as Bush thinks he can get anything he wants by claiming it's a national security issue. He may be right but it's getting tiring.
Look at his lack of concern over our own borders. He's been woeful about enforcement.
I'm not sure how old you are, but I work with teenagers, and have for some time...
Interesting. What's their take on this? Do they perceive any threat at all?
The WOT is to the coming generations what Pearl Harbor was to an earlier one. It's not about having a larger historical perspective vs. a personal one (in which history doesn't matter, just what *I* know from my life)--it's more about an emotional impact that's just never going to go away. And that's going to steer politics for the rest of my life, at least (I'm 40).
You are right about the historical perspective thing. Bush's legacy will be about battling terrorists. I shudder to think what would have happen if Algore had been pres. on 9-11. We would still be negotiating.
I wish Bush would also turn his focus to domestic issue. His father was just like this. "Desert Storm" was his only issue. He seemed to ignore all else.
Bush is really pushing his globalist mentality lately. This bothers me. I don't think globally. I think about my children's future. I don't see a very bright one. I am 45 and can remember when being American was something to be proud of (I still am) but I don't see being American being touted anymore. Now we are supposed to consider ourselves just another part of the world.
Consider these statements by Bush in a campaign speech:
We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.
Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.
For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.
Does your chest swell with pride as you read those words? Do you feel like an "old American" that nominated him to bring on the "new America"?
I did not see or hear anything about this speech till about six months ago. His attitude is clear: He believes in a globalist society. I don't.
Silly semantics, and still no valid response.
Establishing diplomatic relations (an objective measure) would be a fair start.
Curious, isn't it, how Dubai and the UAE have suddenly become a country full of boy scouts. And how even the connection with 9/11 has now been reduced to a couple of the hijackers buying snack crackers at the Dubai airport. Sheesh.
Following is an excerpt from an interesting February 18, 2002, Washington Post article:
"The interviews offered a tantalizing glimpse into the critical yet mysterious role played by gold in the finances of Al Qaeda, both before and after the Sept. 11 attacks. Gold has allowed the Taliban and bin Laden largely to preserve their financial resources, despite the military attack that battered their forces in Afghanistan, investigators and intelligence sources said."
"Al Qaeda also used diamonds purchased in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo, tanzanite from Tanzania and other commodities to make money and hide assets. But gold played a uniquely important role in the group's financial structure, investigators and intelligence sources said, because it is a global currency."
"'Gold is a huge factor in the moving of terrorist money because you can melt it, smelt it or deposit it on account with no questions asked,' said a senior U.S. law enforcement official investigating gold transactions. 'Why move it through Dubai? Because there is a willful blindness there.'"
"Since it is exempt from international reporting requirements for financial transactions, gold is a favored commodity in laundering money from drug trafficking, organized crime and terrorist activities, U.S. officials said. In addition, Dubai, one of seven sheikhdoms that make up the United Arab Emirates, has one of the world's largest and least regulated gold markets, making it an ideal place to hide."
"Dubai is also one of the region's most open banking centers and is the commercial capital of the United Arab Emirates, one of three countries that maintained diplomatic relations with the Taliban until shortly after Sept. 11. Sitting at a strategic crossroad of the Gulf, South Asia and Africa, Dubai has long been a financial hub for Islamic militant groups. Much of the $500,000 used to fund the Sept. 11 attacks came through Dubai, investigators believe."
"'All roads lead to Dubai when it comes to money,' said Patrick Jost, who until last year was a senior financial enforcement officer in the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. 'Everyone did business there.' When the U.S. bombs began pounding Taliban and Al Qaeda targets last autumn, the rush of gold and money out of Afghanistan intensified."
"The Pakistani financial authorities said that $2 million to $3 million a day is usually hand-carried by couriers from Karachi to Dubai, mostly to buy gold. Late last year that amount increased significantly as money was moved out of Afghanistan, they said."
"Pakistani and U.S. officials estimate that $10 million from Afghanistan was taken out by courier over three weeks in late November and early December. The Taliban's fighters fled Kabul on Nov. 12 and abandoned Kandahar on Dec. 7."
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/opdat/selected/CTU/ctu.html
In addition, the US State Department Human Rights reports on the UAE have some, well, interesting disagreements with the spin in the article that leads off this thread.
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.