Posted on 02/25/2006 9:30:52 PM PST by Cornpone
WHAT IS TAKING place in Washington over the proposed takeover of container operations at six major ports in the US by a UAE-based company is nothing but a reflection of the real mindset of American politicians influenced by Israel into seeing Arab and Muslim countries as a security risk to the US after the Sept.11 attacks.
We in the Arab World have to draw our own lessons from the affair.
The UAE is involved in this particularly dispute. But there is no doubt that such deals involving any Arab or Muslim country would draw the same objection from American congress members.
Notwithstanding the sweet talk that American politicians give to us, it is a high probability that any other Arab-owned company would face rejection in the hypothesis that it secures a similar deal in the US.
The facts of the current dispute are clear:
Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the government of the emirate of Dubai, has signed a nearly $7 billion agreement with Britain's P&O to take over the shipping company's port operations around the world. The agreement is awaiting formal approval by a British court.
Under the agreement, DP World will also take over P&O's container operations in six major US ports that the British company had been operating for years. It is a natural transition of operations from one commercial entity which is bought by another.
US security agencies and departments will continue to be in absolute control of security at all ports in the US, including the six involved in the DP World agreement.
Nothing changes whatsover except that DP World will handle all incoming and outgoing containers, which are subject to routine scrutiny by US Customs and security officers from various agencies at the point of final entry and exit.
DP World will have no role whatsoever in any security aspect of the port. It is entirely an American affair.
There should be no hitch in the take-over if all these factors are taken into consideration by critics of the deal. Instead, they are citing "security concerns" and pointing out the UAE had recognised the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in the 90s.
What the critics are overlooking or deliberately ignoring is the excellent track record of the UAE.
The UAE was among the first in the Arab World to sign up in all measures aimed at tightening security and adopting anti-terrorism measures as suggested by the US following the Sept.11 attacks.
The UAE does not have a record of engaging itself in any extremist attacks or harbouring militants. On the contrary, the country has said it remains on high vigil and alert against extremists.
The UAE is among the leading voices of moderation in the Arab World and it has always followed a positive approach to Arab, regional and international issues.
If anything, the UAE, like Jordan, is known for advocating dialogue to resolve conflict, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere.
The UAE has signed bilateral extradition agreements with others and is also following its obligations under them without fail.
It is ridiculous at best to suggest that the UAE has links with extremism simply because extremist suspects happened to pass through the country on their way somewhere else.
Isn't primary that had the UAE had any inkling of their real intentions while they were present in UAE territory, then they would have been arrested and questioned?
Well, US security and intelligence agencies had tip-offs about an impending attack ahead of Sept.11, but they failed to take preventive action; so how anyone could blame others where they themselves had failed?
The key factor in the dispute over the DP World deal is that a commercial entity from an Arab Muslim country, seeking to build itself as a major player in the international market, is facing bitter opposition to a key project that would catapult it towards its strategic business objectives.
Indeed, not everyone critical of the DP World deal might be inclined to oppose it because of inherent hostility towards Arabs and Muslims.
They might indeed have concerns that they might see as genuine when seen from their perspective. That is where they needs to realise that the DP World-P&O deal as given clearance after a careful intelligence and security reivew.
There is a security system in place in the US, and that has vetted the deal. That should put to rest any "security" concerns, unless of course American congressmembers do not trust their own security arrangements.
If the latter is the case, then they should have no trust in their government either. That being not the case, the obvious conclusion is that Jewish-dominated political and business circles supported by vested interests are mobilising themselves against any effort by any Arab country to emerge into the international market and thus gain an influential role in world affairs whether it wants it or otherwise.
It is heartening to see that the Bush administration committed itself that the DP World takeover would go ahead although after a brief delay.
Ollie North is one of my all time heros! So much for 'onxy' projections...lol I have been leaning towards this deal from the beginning after I gathered the FACTS! Too bad most of America is lead by the noose of liberal ignorance. They sway to and fro to the political wind. I actually have been even more amazed by President Bush for standing firm in yet another tide of political 'espionage'. I am a Bush Bot now..like never before....lol
It all makes me wonder where was the objections to the buyout of Chrysler by Daimler? Afterall, Chrysler is involved in defense manufacturing and developement, even under Daimler Chrysler today.
Armstrong Williams has written a good article on this subject.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/24/133445.shtml
Thanks, I will read it later :-)
Sometimes too much defense makes a case look even more suspicious. And so far the loudest 'defense' for this port deal is calling the opposition, (both Republican and democrat), 'racists'. That's not only lame, it's desperate.
If this 7 billion dollar deal that involves our seaports, (the liquid equivelent to our land borders), "didn't rise to the Presidential level", then that makes this Administration look bad, real bad. It also makes no sense that something that didn't even "rise to the Presidential level" got the President so riled about the opposition that he immediately threatened a veto and decided to boldly insinuate that everyone opposed to the deal is a "racist".
You don't have to be Albert Einstein to smell a rat here.
"Did you watch FOX the other night? They went to the ports and they took them through the security measures that all cargos go through. They are monitored, if one is suspicious it goes through a scanner operated by our guys, if something doesn't jibe with the manifest of what is supposed to be inside, it's taken to a seperate are to be opened and inspected. Very reassuring."
No..I missed that. Hubby and I have been watching season 4 of 24 for the last 24 hours..so forgive me if I am stuck on the paranoia switch....lol. Sorry I missed a real world reporting of our actual security. my main point is that we all know as a free society we are vunerable. I would like to see my 'party'..ie, conservatives, come up with real solutions..real bills to address the security lapses or oversights in our security 'strategy' as a country. What bothers me most about this IAE deal is that they might have access to our security measures and moles and terrorists within the company could use the information to harm this country.
14 different agencies looked at this deal and the DHS had one issue which was resolved at the staff level and therefore this deal never rose to the level where the President needed to be involved
That is the law.
It's like playing Whack a Mole. They pop up, we whack them. After watching what is done not only at our ports, but hearing what is being done at the exit ports, I'm not worried. Nothing can catch everything, there are no guarantees we will be safe, but it really doesn't matter who owns the company that's writing the checks. The personnel are exactly the same, the security is exactly the same, the longshoremen are exactly the same. If someone is going to get through, it wouldn't matter if the checks are written by a British company or by a Dubai company. As a matter of fact, we're probably safer with the Dubai company since they have been on the cutting edge of some of the new security technology and willing to spend their money on it.
post 108! yep!
A reminder to whoever asked you about the Bin Laden Group buying out port operations: Last I heard, that company was involved in construction, not shipping.
Like you told them, a silly point.
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but the lack of facts displayed this past week on this forum pertaining to this subject is mind boggling
Any proof of this hissy fit?
Spot on about big labor vs. technology. The last west coast longshoreman's strike, one of THE issues, maybe the only real one was a proposal to control the flow of containers by using a dangerously experimental new technology, barcode readers. The primary danger was that a few dozen older timeservers whose only economic contribution was to wander the docks with clipboards, knocking down six figures a year for slowing down the flow of goods and doing what one automated scanner could have done more quickly might have had to find better cover to justify their paychecks.
DWP is NOT buying any port. They would be, essentially, baggage handlers. Granted, high dollar baggage, thus the $7 billion bid. Main reason good ol' All-American firms were excluded from the deal is there ain't none.
I'm not worried. Nothing can catch everything, there are "...no guarantees we will be safe, but it really doesn't matter who owns the company that's writing the checks. The personnel are exactly the same, the security is exactly the same, the longshoremen are exactly the same. If someone is going to get through, it wouldn't matter if the checks are written by a British company or by a Dubai company. As a matter of fact, we're probably safer with the Dubai company since they have been on the cutting edge of some of the new security technology and willing to spend their money on it."
I dunno..corporate sites are usually an easy site to 'mine' for data via the internet. Regardless...if the IAE had NO potential for Islamic terrorists(which..let's face it..they don't)..the minute this port company has possession of our official' security measures as a company..the cat is out of the bag. Perhaps..the cat is out of the bag anyway on many other fronts..I dunno.
There has been a lot of criticism about allowing communist China to operate several of our seaports, much of it right here on FR. But one thing about China, even though they are our enemy in the sense we take a very different world view than they do, they have never attacked us, or anyone else I know of, through the calculated, pre-meditated mass slaughter of innocent civilians. The Chinese people don't seem to be angry, unstable and combative like muslims do, so they don't present the same kind of threat to us.
As for the other countries you mentioned, they are not only our allies, they are our longstanding, tried and true friends who have the exact same world view as Americans do.
Regarding your thoughts about "bringing islam into the 21st century", don't worry too much about that; Iran is doing just that with their nuclear technology. So I'd prefer the rest of islam stay right where they are, mired in the 7th century. It's MUCH safer for the rest of the world that way. The thought of an islam in possession of a large, high-tech, advanced and capable military, along with a strong economy that could challenge the U.S. and the West, isn't exactly a comforting thought. Let them first bring THEMSELVES into a civilized, peaceful state of mind, and the rest will just take care of itself.
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.