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.
That's heartening especially for your area.
Thanks for your posts, too. It's nice to have a conversation without rancor.
Can't you guys do something about Kennedy and Kerry? ;)
You want to know something else curious about the boys in Dubai and the U.A.E.? Check the front page of today's Khaleej Times, http://www.khaleejtimes.com/index00.asp. Narry a word about this controversy. If you do a word search on ports the closest thing you'll find is sports. Don't bother to look in the business section either. I wonder why? Could it be that their press is so civilized it doesn't bother its citizens about the stupidity of Americans and their concerns over national security?
It's not really that difficult of a question. You do know that DPW won't be taking over any ports don't you?
Those opposed to this deal are hoping the old adage comes true.
"Repeat a lie long enough and eventually it becomes the truth."
You get to define what is necessary.
You get to demand assurances.
If I run to the phone and call my buddy the Sheik and tell him to open up an embassy in Israel, will that make you feeeel better?
I also noticed that when simply asked to defend their statements they run. I wonder why.
Apparently you do know that what you kept saying was a lie. Then what is your motive for repeating that lie?
i'm very confused about your question.
what i have read is that the dubai company will be operating the ports, but not the security at the ports.
however, i haven't yet seen much info on what it actually means to "operate" the ports.
most of the articles i have read so far are short on actual facts, and strong on opinion.
if i find out anything specific, i will let you know.
They don't have anything to stand on but the bogus talking points. If they do respond, it is usually with some personal attack and accusation of treason against those who approve of the deal. Standard operation procedure for the Bush/Republican haters on FR. (If you notice, almost all who are opposed to the deal are the same ones who ooze hatred toward the President on a daily basis.)
They either run or come back with some nonsensical rant or make claims that can't be verified.
I am getting burned out with all of this after 5 days now.
i think the word the articles are using is that the company which is controlled by the government of dubai will "operate" the ports.
(some articles use the word "own" or "buy" but i am assuming those articles are incorrect.)
i am assuming it is some sort of contract for operating the ports.
the problems will all be in the details. so far, i haven't seen the actual contract.
For somebody so admittedly confused and bereft of knowledge, you sure have a lot of posts on this thread. But you are not alone in that.
And they ping a bunch of other kooks to come to the thread and do the same things. Thankfully two of them are gone but one was allowed back for some dumb reason.
i haven't been intentionally lying.
i think the company will be OPERATING THE PORTS.
I already did wise guy, I can't help it if you can't comprehend that.
i think you guys should check out who is doing the name calling here. so far i have been called a liar and insulted several times. (I haven't called you a liar, but you said i was lying.)
i think it is a serious security error to turn port operation over to a company controlled by a government that has supported al qaeda, talaban, and hamas.
They repeat a lot of the same phrases.
you guys can't resist the insults, can you!
And Pat Buchanan
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.