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.
My gosh!!! What a great find!!!
What P&O obviously had was a bidding war between two companies - both gov't owned ports operations management businesses.The only apparent difference being that one is Asian (Singapore) owned... but less obviously at a quick glance... and the other overtly, in-your-face Arab (UAE) owned.Thank you very much for providing this informatio and pinging me to it.
People who know something about ports, and port security, and port management are not panicking.
The folks who are grandstanding on TV keep shifting their reasons for objecting to DPW's takeover of P&O. They can't seem to stitch a reasonable argument together without contradicting themselves or attempting to contradict reality.
I've read some more of that blogsite you posted. What a great job the bloggers have done!!
"The scurrilous comments directed at the United Arab Emirates by Michelle Malkin have the potential to assist al-Qaeda recruiting in that country"
Thats right. AlQaeda didn't know UAE was a U.S. ally until Michelle Malkin announced it and now she has set in motion the overthrow of the UAE by AlQaeda.(sarcasm)
My 15 YO is on a school trip to Washington DC. The kids were told essentially the same thing (about DC).
How about 20 15 yr. olds in a group?Could they leave the "resort areas" in D.C.
Would they all be killed?
i have been reading criticisms of malkin on these threads."
It's really about the things that are not being said.Like:
"My company does business with the UAE and I stand to make a lot of money if the port deal goes through."
"I have a lot of stock in DP World and I stand to make a lot of money if the port deal goes through."
"I'm a muslim and you don't know it nanner nanner nanner.""
Muslims against terrorism and extremism
For the record, the inhuman attacks of September 11 werecondemned in the strongest terms by virtually all Islamic leaders, organizations, and countries. TheGrand Mufti of Saudi Arabia summarized that, "...hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood, constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts." Muslim Condemnations of 9/11 Muslim leaders speak out against violence and terrorism
Prominent American Muslims denounce terror committed in the name of Islam
How about the Muslim demonstration in Washington D.C. that drew about 200 demonstrators? WOW! That's really making a bolt nationwide statement!
Code Pink can assemble more people to demonstrate against our wounded soldiers than FR can muster to counteract them. The same holds true for the antiwar movement. The Left can mobilize more people in the streets for their causes, which doesn't mean that they represent the majority.
No. I'm not implying anything of the sort. But, any government that has the position of wanting Israel eliminated has too much in common with the terrorists. And, we should regard them differently as we regard Norway or Spain and Slovakia.
The UAE doesn't recognize Israel but has not stated that it is the official government position to have Israel "eliminated." We don't have diplomatic relations with Cuba, North Korea, and Iran, but we don't want these countries eliminated.
Most European countries have more sympathy towards the Palestinians than the Israelis. That includes the UK.
Q: Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask you about government -- the U.S. government's decision to have a company from the UAE run six U.S. seaports. Is that a decision that the Defense Department weighed in on? And what, if any, national security issues do you think that raises?
SEC. RUMSFELD: First, let me say I'm not expert on this subject, and it -- my understanding that I've been told secondhand by others is the following: that there's a process that exists in the government; that six departments and agencies are involved, and five or six offices in the Executive Office of the President and the White House are involved; and there's a time limit of something like 30 days during which this process is to be executed; that the process worked; it was chaired by the Department of Treasury -- the deputy, Bob Kimmitt, is -- was the chairman -- and they -- in the normal order of things, what they do, as I understand it, is they select a lead agency or department based on the substance of it -- and in this case, it was Homeland Security, obviously, because the Coast Guard has the responsibility for the security of ports -- and that the process went forward; and in the course of it, the Department of Homeland Security and the interagency process negotiated a letter with the company that had purchased, I believe, a British company, setting forth exactly how security would be handled. I've not seen it, so I can't describe it, but that's my understanding.
And the -- I guess the only other thing I'd say is that we all deal with the UAE on a regular basis.
It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror with us, it's a country that we have facilities that we use, and it's a country that was very responsive to assist in Katrina, one of the early countries that did that, and a country that we have very close military-to-military relations as well as political and economic relations.
Do you want to comment?
GEN. PACE: Sir, the military-to-military relationship with the United Arab Emirates is superb. They've got great seaports that are capable of handling, and do, our aircraft carriers. They've got airfields that they allow us to use, and their airspace, their logistics support. They've got a world-class air-to-air training facility that they let us use and cooperate with them in the training of our pilots. In everything that we have asked and work with them on, they have proven to be very, very solid partners. And as the Secretary said, they were the very first country -- a hundred million dollars is what they offered to Katrina victims.
Certainly, al-Qaeda knew that the UAE was a US ally, but perhaps not to the extent that the whole world now knows. The more that comes out about their cooperation with us, the more in danger their leaders are.
During a time of war, it is not wise to let the enemy know all. We are trying to fight this war "with our pants down" and our arses on display for all to see. The NSA story is a case in point. While the Dems relish the exposure of this program, it's revelation has tied the hands of those who are trying to protect this country.
Certainly, al-Qaeda knew that the UAE was a US ally, but perhaps not to the extent that the whole world now knows."
Thats right, AlQaeda was fooled.
They've got great seaports that are capable of handling, and do, our aircraft carriers. They've got airfields that they allow us to use, and their airspace, their logistics support. They've got a world-class air-to-air training facility that they let us use and cooperate with them in the training of our pilots.
My turn:
1. While nominally the paragon of Arab striving for modernity, Dubai and the rest of the Emirates are inhabited by people not only similar to their Muslim brethren elsewhere, but disproportionately inclined to Islamic terrorism. There are barely a million UAE citizens, but they included two of the 19 terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks—including Marwan al Shehhi, who—according to the FBI—flew United Airlines flight 175 into the second World Trade Center tower.
2. Several of the 9-11 hijackers and planners traveled through the UAE or stayed there while preparing the attack, and its banking system was used to move funds used in the operation. This has prompted critics to call the Emirates “an operational and financial base for the hijackers” who carried out the 9-11 attacks.
3. Only three countries in the world recognized the Taliban regime in Afghanistan: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan—and the UAE. Entrusting the running of America’s ports to a company owned by one of those three governments is inherently unsafe.
4. According to a bipartisan congressional letter of protest sent to the Administration last week, the UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran and North Korea. If such shipments, many of them bulky, passed undetected, the UAE government is guilty either of gross negligence or of complicity.
5. The management structure, hiring policies, and external supervision of the company itself are flawed. “There are conditions, which shows they had concerns, but it’s all procedural and relies entirely on good faith,” according to Rep. Pete King, a Republican from New York and the House homeland security chief, but “there’s nothing those conditions . . . nothing that assures us they’re not hiring someone with bin Laden.”
6. The plan was not subjected to any proper evaluation by the Department of Homeland Security. Its administrators obediently rubber-stamped it, but its senior security analysts were surreptitious bypassed. They “were never told [about it] and they don’t like it now.”
7. The Dubai firm has unnaturally close ties to the White House. Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose department heads the federal panel that approved the deal, was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to Dubai Ports World for $1.15 billion in 2004—one year after Snow left for President Bush’s cabinet. David Sanborn, currently in charge of Dubai Ports World’s European and Latin American operations, “was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.”
It is in the interest of Muslims to oppose these attacks since they comprise most of the victims.
Now.
Oh, I'll grant they have done things that prove we can trust them.
Now.
But Islam could very well be stronger in a decade.
Paranoid? Absolutely, especially since it ain't friggin' necessary, except to secure an ally which may stop being an ally at any time. Why take the chance? 
I didn't "lift" anything and if I was inclined to "lift" $hit, I wouldn't do it with an article currently in latest posts.
Why is it drivel? Are you saying none of it is true?
That's why.
Distorted and one-sided.
Americans in Iraq depend on Iraqi soldiers, security officers, policemen, truck drivers, and all kind of workers for all kind of tasks. There are Muslims working inside the wire on most bases.
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.