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.
Sorry about the format.
UAE may have signed up by in December 2004, but they certainly were nowhere near "the first," nor are they on the list as of 2005.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05557.pdf
Table 1: CSI Operational Seaports, as of February 2005
Country/region | CSI port | Date CSI operations began at port
Canada Halifax March 2002
Montreal March 2002
Vancouver February 2002
The Netherlands Rotterdam September 2002
France Le Havre December 2002
Marseilles January 2005
Germany Bremerhaven February 2003
Hamburg February 2003
Belgium Antwerp February 2003
Zeebrugge October 2004
Republic of Singapore Singapore March 2003
Japan Yokohama March 2003
Tokyo May 2004
Nagoya August 2004
Kobe August 2004
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China Hong Kong May 2003
Sweden Gothenburg May 2003
United Kingdom Felixstowe May 2003
Liverpool October 2004
Southampton October 2004
Thamesport October 2004
Tilbury October 2004
Italy Genoa June 2003
La Spezia June 2003
Livorno December 2004
Naples September 2004
Gioia Tauro October 2004
South Korea Busan August 2003
South Africa Durban December 2003
Malaysia Port Klang March 2004
Tanjung Pelepas August 2004
Greece Piraeus July 2004
Spain Algeciras July 2004
Thailand Laem Chabang August 2004
"No amount of security is perfect or guarantee us from an attack, and I never said it would, but your argument tonight has been about why we should not allow this transaction to go forward because of the threat of Pirates and and our inability to know what is being off loaded at our Ports"
NO..my argument tonight has been about how vulnerable we are!! I even said in one or two posts that I leaned towards favoring the deal with the IAE! You are not reading my posts to others I guess..but my 'record' is clear on the matter in this thread! I have questions....
Thanks.
Who was it who said free speech should have it's limits?
Perhaps in a time of war free trade should have its limits.
Let's hope we don't find out.
Tell me again who it is we are at war with? Why does our enemy want to kill us? What is their ideological motivation. We need to be clear on this because a lot of people are killing and being killed. And finally...do you believe that Islam is a religion of peace as G.W. Bush does?
Excuse me. I am the one who needs to get sleep. I by mistake replied to the wrong post as if it were directed to me. :>(
You offer nothing with that link.
I interjected because it was ebarassing to see you clutch and toss any speculative reasons to support you failed points.
Stick and move.
I posted a link to a list of those ports/countries who were part of the CSI program as of February 2005.
Here it is again (See page 14, 15)
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05557.pdf
I also posted the list of 34 ports in post #181.
It's late..but your post has startled me..
You said:
"If a major terrorist incident happens through our ports, preventable or not, expect our government to move to nationalize our sea ports and maybe our airlines as well.
Who was it who said free speech should have it's limits?
Perhaps in a time of war free trade should have its limits.
Let's hope we don't find out."
The leftist wing of the Democrat party has made moves to 'nationalize' every infrastructure we ever had from the beginning of the communist and leftist movement..what are you talkin about? You should concern yourself with the indoctrination that inspires you to blame all the evils in the world on 'free enterprise'!! We have a good history of causation of ownership and 'radical fiscal changes in the peasant classes'...lol.. for the better!!
History is on the side of free enterprise! So far..the record on the inhibition of free speech and free enterprise is abysmal and failed.
You said:
"Tell me again who it is we are at war with? Why does our enemy want to kill us? What is their ideological motivation. We need to be clear on this because a lot of people are killing and being killed. And finally...do you believe that Islam is a religion of peace as G.W. Bush does?"
We are at war with Islamist fundamentalist radicals. They envision a world caliphate that dictates to you and me how we will live our lives according to shariah(Islamic) law. Every American owes it to this country to educate themselves on the threat we face and to somehow divest the reality of Islamism from popular politics from either side. We also need to realize the big picture. Islam has BILLIONS of followers and if our Prez came right out and said they were a bunch of nutcases..well...this would not help matters...now would it?
Trust..but verify
and u r riding that blind horse all the way to defeat.....LMAO!!
You misread my meaning...I didn't say it would be a GOOD thing. You take a pissy tone with some one trying to help you make your point? Screw it...I'm through for now.
bttt
In addition to the 34 ports listed in post 181 from the GAO report, 8 have been added to make it a total of 42.
Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE) (03/26/05)
Shanghai (04/28/05)
Shenzhen (06/24/05)
Buenos Aires, Argentina (11/17/05)
Kaohsiung (07/25/05)
Santos, Brazil (09/22/05)
Colombo, Sri Lanka (09/29/05)
Lisbon, Portugal (12/14/05).
"You take a pissy tone with some one trying to help you make your point? Screw it...I'm through for now."
sorry..i get a little pissy about freedom. I do appreciate the points you helped me with tonight. It is late..so i should go to bed without delay. All is well that ends with thank you...
Thank you... (wink)
Why is everyone getting their pants in a wad about stupid surface ships. If Pakistan has stealth subs, wouldn't it be simple for Iran to buy a few for themselves? Pakistan has a sub that might be quiet enough to evade our O stations (sonar listening stations). You wouldn't need a container ship at all. Just sail right in with the sub. According to Defence Journal, Pakistan's subs have a range of close to twelve thousand miles…they can travel to the Hudson River or the Chesapeake Bay, unleash their missiles on New York and Washington, then still be able to take refuge in mid-ocean, lay low and threaten other world capitals with a similar fate.
The United States operates a network of hydrophones scattered all over the Atlantic and Pacific seabed. We are listening for subs like these. But we may not be able to hear them. The Pakistani subs use a methanol-and-liquid-oxygen engine bedded on a suspension system that quiets its purr to a whisper. We may not be able to detect their silent running beneath the sounds of zebrafish fanning their tails.
Hope everyone sleeps good tonight.
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.