Posted on 03/01/2006 11:33:34 AM PST by Reagan Man
Why isn’t President Bush pressuring the United Arab Emirates to become the United Arab Democracies? Doesn’t our security depend on it?
If you could know for certain that UAE officials no longer consort with Osama bin Laden (as The 9/11 Commission Report -- see pages 137-139 -- says they did before September 11, 2001), and if you weren’t inalterably opposed on free-market grounds to government ownership of industry, then Bush’s support for permitting a UAE-government-owned entity to manage some U.S. port facilities might be a defensible exercise in realpolitik. It cannot be squared, however, with the President’s argument that our security depends on pushing democracy around the world and especially in the Middle East.
The ports deal enriches UAE’s authoritarian rulers.
Bush’s realistic action here rebuts his ideological rhetoric. Forget democracy. These emirs, he has apparently decided, are our kind of emirs.
Last Tuesday, Bush lauded the Emirates as our “ally in the war on terror” and said it “would send a terrible signal to friends and allies” if we prevented them from managing some of our port operations. Three days later, he gave a major speech discussing “how our efforts to spread liberty and democracy throughout the broader Middle East are progressing.” But he said not a word about spreading liberty and democracy to the Emirates. What kind of signal did that send?
Bush’s rhetoric was sweeping. “Our freedom agenda is based on a clear premise: the security of our nation depends on the advance of liberty in other nations,” he said. “To secure the peace of the world, we seek the end of tyranny in the world.”
His benchmarks for measuring Middle Eastern regimes were specific. “Our efforts in the broader Middle East have been guided by a clear principle,” Bush said. “Democracy takes different forms in different cultures. Yet, all cultures, in order to be successful, have certain common truths: rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, a free economy, freedom of women, and the freedom to worship.”
So, how do the emirs measure up? Judging by the State Department’s most recent Country Report on Human Rights (published in 2005) they fall far short. Do the Emirates have “democracy”? “There are no democratic elections or institutions, and citizens do not have the right to form political parties,” says State.
Do the Emirates have “rule of law”? “The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary,” says State, “however, its decisions were subject to review by the political leadership.”
Do the Emirates have “freedom of speech”? “The law prohibits, under penalty of imprisonment, criticism of the government, ruling families, and friendly governments, as well as other statements that threaten social stability,” says State. The government “approves the appointment of editors.”
Do the Emirates have “freedom of assembly”? “The Constitution does not provide for freedom of assembly or association,” says State.
Do the Emirates have a “free economy”? “The country has a free market economy,” says State. But based on State’s own report, I don’t believe it. Dubai Ports World isn’t UAE’s only state-owned enterprise. In a country where oil and gas is the dominant industry, “[e]ach emirate independently owns local oil and gas production.” Also, UAE must have one of the world’s most extensive guest-worker programs: “98% of the private sector workforce is foreign.”
“The law does not specifically prohibit trafficking in persons,” says State, “ … In practice, trafficking in women and girls used as prostitutes, and very young boys used as camel jockeys, continued to be serious problems.”
What about “freedom of women”? “Custom dictates that a husband can bar his wife, minor children and adult unmarried daughters from leaving the country,” say State. “All male citizens can pass citizenship to their children at birth, whereas female citizens married to noncitizens cannot pass citizenship to their children.”
Then there is what the President calls “freedom of worship” -- which differs from the 1st Amendment’s “free exercise” of religion, I suspect, in that it doesn’t include the freedom to choose your religion. It is a “freedom” carefully tailored to fit under the Big Tent pitched at camp meetings of the global crusade for democracy. The UAE “prohibits Muslims from converting to other religions,” says State. “Although non-Muslims in the country are free to practice their religion”--n.b. freedom of worship -- “they are subject to criminal prosecution, imprisonment, and deportation if found proselytizing or distributing religious literature to Muslims.”
Sharing the Truth that sets men free is illegal in UAE.
Some day, we must hope, that will change. For now, even a U.S. president vocally committed to a global crusade for freedom and democracy, is acting according to his own understanding of the reality that to defend our country against terrorists we must sometimes make allies with regimes that are neither free nor democratic.
I fully support the President's efforts in the WOT following the 9-11 attacks. His leadership in this area has been remarkable. Its also important to keep lines of communications open and diplomatic arrangements in place when it comes to government to government dealings in the ME and when America's best interests are at stake. I advocate keeping US military bases in Afghanistan and Iraq, long term. The US military needs to have short travel distance if a quick response arises to protect and defend US interests. Generally, I support killing as many "jihadists" and "Islamofascists" as possible, before they kill anymore Americans.
However, I have never supported the US govt once again becoming policeman to the world. Not under liberal Democrats and definitely not under a GOP POTUS. I don't support nation building and I definitely don't support any attempts to democratize the Islamic world. No POTUS could accomplish that in 300 years, let alone the less then three years Bush has remaining in his term.
The next big bite in the butt will probably come from propping up a dictator in Pakistan. Saudi Arabia or maybe Egypt will come after that. UAE, to date, seems to be a little more enlightened then most of those scumbags but they are dictators nonetheless and eventually their people are going to demand some self determination and are going to resent our economic support of their oppressors. I frankly won't much blame them but I'll still be pissed when they blow up one of our ships or New York City.
True. The port deal should be approved or disapproved based on our laws regarding such deals.
It looks like based on those laws, it's going to be approved.
So should the laws be changed? Are we going to make specific requirements about government owned companies based on the policies of those governments, rahter than the actions of that company they own?
Should we only allow foreign investment by companies if they aren't owned by a government that isn't generally democratic in nature?
This issue really isn't about security.
If employees of DB Ports World aid in a terrorist attack and it's traced back to the government their leadiers are going to face the concentrated wrath of the United States. I suspect that their government has a very strong interest in making sure they hire reliable people without terrorist ties.
However, there is the issue of this deal possibly helping to enrich a government which by our standards is oppressive. That's a serious issue, but not one with a simple solution, because sometimes you need to cooperate and encourage change. Other times you need to require change before cooperation.
Without U.S consent to this port deal, the moderate Muslim dictators will think we don't trust them. This will cause them to go right over the edge, and join in with the Muslim extremists, for not getting rewarded with our confidence...and it will be ALL our fault, because of OUR Islamo-phobia! ;^)
They would be an "ally" if they are feeding us intel on our enemies, and allowing our operatives to operate there freely. (It does not obviously follow, though, that they should be running our ports).
The remark about spreading liberty to the Emirates is a non sequitur, though. We favor liberty everywhere (and as arab countries go, the UAE is about as good as it gets). But we only impose it in cases where we have overthrown the established regime. If we decide to invade the UAE, and hang the princes, you can imagine we will promote elections there.
We didn't invade Afghanistan in order to establish democracy, we went in to get rid of the Taliban. But, with them gone, we are taking some pains to leave something better than what we found. Not doing so after after we ejected the Soviets led us to where we were in September of 2001. Similarly, in Iraq, we didn't invade to establish multiparty elections, but so we could hang Saddam. But again, in hopes of avoiding the immediate rise of another Saddam, we are trying to leave something better. The jury is still out whether it will work or not.
The last thing we need is to import the innumerable maladies of the Arab world.
True.
They have a Army of 65,000 and most are stationed in Dubai. Most of the troops are borrowed or rented from other nations like Pakistan, Jordan or Egypt. All officers of the core guard must be UAE citizens. The Army's sole objective is to protect the Emirates and government. The air force is 3500 and has purchase F-16's and mirage jets from the US and France to patrol the coast line. The navy has 12 patrol boats that protect the Dubai port by sea. They possess no nuclear capability nor do they appear to be seeking one. They have not fought a war although their government has supported others politically and by funding.
The Dubai port is one of the largest, most modern and secure ports in the world. It has always been the base of their economy since 1900.
Recently there has been a startling revelation. The UAE, ~4 million terrorists of mostly Muslim faith are going to attack the ports of the largest superpower in the world. They will then defend themselves with a rented army.
Its a most sinister plot. They are going to have DP (a shipping company owned by Dubai) buy up the ports and security and install their own terrorists (our president agrees with this. and it is proved by FR threads). Then they are going to smuggle all types of nuclear weapons (they do not possess) and other devious weapons they must possess into the ports by containers. Its a complicated plan because all containers from Dubai are inspected and the manifests noted by another incompetent US security force (they have both radiation and X-ray detection) before the containers leave Dubai.
You might ask then how can the attack occur. It's simple, once the ships leave the Dubai ports the terrorists will immediately kill all merchant seamen who are not terrorists. Although there are back ground checks on all merchant seamen by US security the terrorist merchant seamen will not be detected because American security is incompetent. Then the terrorists will unload the containers and throw the goods in the sea to make room. Allah will then provide, He will moon-drop all types of nuclear weapons (that don't yet exist) and unheard of weapons in the containers. Allah will then provide a cloaking device to shield the weapons. This is necessary because useless American security starts tracking ships as far as 30 hrs. out of port. Since all containers from the ME ports are checked by radiation and x-rays terrorists have to be careful. Useless American security often stops these ships 9 miles out of port with hand-held radiation detectors. and all the containers must go throught security at the port. The cloaking device will make the weapons go away and then they will reappear when the inspections are done. When the containers are far in the ports the cloaking device will be removed and America will be blown up. Simple. The US will then attack the UAE and be defeated by the 64,000 rented army of the UAE.
This is a good plan, Bush should have seen it but he is in the pockets of UAE. My granddad told me he had seen similar plans and they would have worked if implemented. I am not the only one that thinks this. I have two sources at Shady Pines (rest home for insane former Government employees) that agree with my facts. We must kill them first or we are doomed. Bush's attacks on terrorists is only a ploy to deceive us, he is in their pocket and will stand with them. Stop him before he kills us all.
So ya....this link below is from Rense and it is Bush Bash...and may have some slant to it.
Yet if 20% of the substance of the article is true....Afghanistan is a major con/scheme.
Allready UAE ports deal is pealed back to reveal ceedy side of money in action.
and incidentally....Neil Bush turns up with Dubai...and Bridas Argentina [Afghan pipeline].
coincidence?
Investors from the United Arab Emirates helped fund the $23 million Neil Bush raised for Ignite!, the learning systems company that holds lucrative No Child Left Behind Act contracts in Florida and Texas. The "Cow" is an Ignite! portable computer designed to work in a classroom, providing interactive instruction aimed at improving students' scores on standardized tests. If you loved Billy Carter and "Billy Beer," you're certain to love Neil Bush and the "Ignite! Cow."
Neil Bush's frequent travels to Dubai are documented by Datamatix, a Dubai-based information technology company that has featured Neil Bush as a speaker. The Datamatix website features several prominent photographs of Neil Bush addressing a Dubai conference, identifying Neil Bush as "the brother of U.S. President George Bush."
Dubai's Datamatix appears to be bipartisan, as the company's website also shows Dubai appearances of various Democratic Party luminaries including Al Gore (with and without a beard), Sandy Berger – the National Security Adviser under President Clinton who achieved fame by stuffing classified documents in his socks – and Howard Dean, the current Democratic National Committee chairman. The site also shows photographs of Tipper Gore and John Sununu receiving "Token of Appreciation" awards in Dubai from Datamatix. Anti-Bush Internet websites have been touting the Neil Bush connection with Dubai for months, although the story has been largely shut out of the mainstream media. (See Debbie Schlussel's Feb. 23, 2006, column, "Something's Rotten in Dubai.")
Many times over, Neil Bush has won the distinction of being the "black sheep" of the Bush family. In 1988, Neil Bush was a director of the failed Silverado Savings and Loan, which collapsed in a scandal that ultimately cost taxpayers an estimated $1 billion. For his role in the savings and loan debacle, Neil Bush was personally fined and permanently banned from any further activities in banking. In a messy divorce ending a 23-year marriage with Sharon Bush, the mother of his children, Neil Bush gave a deposition in which he admitted multiple sex romps with Oriental prostitutes during his many "business trips" to Asia.
Reports also document Neil Bush traveling around the ex-Soviet Union to raise money for Ignite! with the notorious Boris Berezovsky, a Russian wheeler-dealer who has sought asylum in London to avoid Russian authorities who want to prosecute him for fraud. Bush has also turned up in the Philippines and Taiwan at the side of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, the head of the controversial Unification Church. State Department and White House spokespersons often disavow any comment when pressed to respond to reports of Neil Bush's business activities. In a separate business venture involving semiconductors, Neil Bush took investment money from Jiang Mianheng, the son of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin.
Neil Bush is hardly the first to trade on the name of his president brother. We all remember Donald Nixon, who took a $200,000 never-repaid loan from Howard Hughes to establish a failed chain of hamburger joints, known as "Nixonburgers." Then, there was Billy Carter who took $200,000 from Muammar Gadhafi to lobby Jimmy Carter to release embargoed C-130 airplanes to Libya. Also, Roger Clinton, who spent a year in prison for dealing cocaine, surfaced in "Pardongate" by arguing as Clinton left the White House to get pardons for a rogue's gallery of his clients, including Rosario Gambino, a jailed New Jersey restaurant owner with ties to organized crime.
As investigative reporters start digging to "follow the money" in what is becoming known as the "Dubai Debacle," Neil Bush is certain to find center stage once again in what well could be also dubbed the coming "Neil-gate" controversy.
I am not at all willing to take 9/11 Commission Report as gospel. Although officially bipartisan, the Commission showed an extraordinary tendency to believe what would advance the Democratic agenda. Did the hunting party with bin Laden really happen, or did somebody invent it for reasons of his own?
I agree, but I take the word of the 9-11 commission over the word of "jihadists" and "islamofascists". Don't you?
>>>>Did the hunting party with bin Laden really happen, or did somebody invent it for reasons of his own?
United Arab Emirates actively participated in the following event:
1995-2001: Persian Gulf Elite Go Hunting with bin Laden in Afghanistan Complete 911 Timeline
After the Taliban takes control of the area around Kandahar, Afghanistan, in September 1994, prominent Persian Gulf state officials and businessmen, including high-ranking United Arab Emirates and Saudi government ministers, such as Saudi intelligence minister Prince Turki al-Faisal, frequently secretly fly into Kandahar on state and private jets for hunting expeditions. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01] General Wayne Downing, Bush's former national director for combating terrorism, says: “They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses. One noted visitor is Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai.” [MSNBC, 9/5/03] While there, some develop ties to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and give them money. Both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar sometimes participate in these hunting trips. Former US and Afghan officials suspect that the dignitaries' outbound jets may also have smuggled out al-Qaeda and Taliban personnel. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01] On one occasion, the US will decide not to attack bin Laden with a missile because he's falconing with important members of the United Arab Emirates' royal family (see February 1999).
People and organizations involved: Wayne Downing, al-Qaeda, Mullah Omar, Taliban, Osama bin Laden, Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, Turki bin Faisal bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, United Arab Emirates
I think you're missing an important point. Playing world policeman is incompatible with encouraging democracy long term.
What we are trying to do in Iraq is protect the fledgling government there from falling prey to a well funded and organized minority that wants to oppress and control the people.
We are trying to keep a minority from forcing their will on the majority and oppressing them. However, we can't do that long term or we end up beign oppressors ourselves in a way.
What we are doing is giving the Iraqi government a chance to get organized. We're giving them a chance for their leaders to learn to effectively govern. We're giving their military and police a chance to learn to work effectively.
We're stepping down as they are able to step up.
If you just go into a place like Iraq and take out the top leadership, you don't change things other than the top leadership. That's a mistake we've made many times in the past.
What we are doing in Iraq is giving the people of Iraq a chance to determine what they want. I believe that long term it's the best approach. However, it's not a guaranteed solution. It also isn't a fast or easy process. No one should expect it to be. However, it does seem to be working.
The problems we have seen in Iraq should have been expected, and to a large extent have been expected. It's not a simple or easy process to take millions of people and get them to agree on how to move a country forward. We've got hundreds of years of experience at it and are no less divided than they are politically, we just don't solve our political differences by shooting each other as much.
What we are doing ther is helping provide stability. Helping to change things so that they resolve their differences polittically rather than by shooting each other.
As they are better able to provide stability on their own, we play a less active role.
If you think this is a waste, or that the risks outweigh the chance of success, what do you suggest?
Should we have allowed Iraq to trade one dictator for another and let religious extremists take control? We've seen over and over again that extremists are quite capable of wresting control over moderates who end up trying to appease extremists trather than oppose them.
It's easy to criticize Bush's plan because it's guaranteed to have setbacks along the way. It's not going to be smooth or easy, and if you concentrate on all the problem they face and ignore the problems they have overcome and the progress they've made, it looks like it isn't working.
However, if you look at Iraq and all the progress they've made despite the incredible challenges they face, it is working. Progress is being made.
If you look at Afganistan, the progress they made was incredible, and they probably benefitted from the fact foreign insurgents concentrated on trying to grab control in the relatively wealthy Iraq rather than in the relatively poor Afganistan.
Israeli shipping company supports UAE port deal. To be on CNN later today.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1588559/posts
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.