Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Americans score a Pyrrhic victory
Gulf News ^ | March 11, 2006 | Gulf News Editorial

Posted on 03/11/2006 2:16:26 AM PST by PrinceOfCups

So DP World has decided to relinquish management of the American ports and terminals. Doubtless the decision was taken to maintain good relations between the UAE and the US and not cause embarrassment to the US President George W. Bush. Yet taking the narrow political view, American politicians against the takeover now look upon the withdrawal by DP World as a "victory".

But if it is a victory, it is likely to be short-lived. For longer term consequences may take months, if not years, to materialise. And then, in subtle and possibly unrecognised ways, as the Arab world makes full assessment of what has taken place in recent weeks and determines, each in his own way, what form of action, if any, to take.

On a government-to-government level, it is unlikely there will be any lasting adverse effects in the relations between the US and Gulf countries. The US has been, and is, too valuable an ally to lightly give up, either in defence and security issues or as an economic partner.

Other nations around the Middle East may look upon the events as a typical example of American animosity towards people and things of the region and, harbouring that grudge, may build up further anti-American feelings among their people.

On an individual basis, whether any investor or industrialist has second thoughts about directing funds to the US in the future, will very much depend on the individual.

Bearing in mind that the whole issue revolves around business, as far as it is seen in the Arab world, and not politics, as the US sees it, most Arab business leaders take a more pragmatic view. They acknowledge that the US is still a worthy place to invest in, regardless of how unwelcome that investment now seems to be.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: dpworld; dubai; ports; uae
Another post-mortem editorial from Dubai
1 posted on 03/11/2006 2:16:29 AM PST by PrinceOfCups
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PrinceOfCups


2 posted on 03/11/2006 2:17:36 AM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PrinceOfCups

I was reading a couple of my fav UAE blogs tonight. They appear to be quite a little upset. One blogger noted that no arab country supported them in this but the only people from the region that stood up for them was Israeli Interest. Of course now the arab press in the region will go hog wild over it.

3 posted on 03/11/2006 2:20:04 AM PST by bayourant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bayourant

"the only people from the region that stood up for them was Israeli Interest"

I saw that article also. That article re: Israel supporting Dubai plus the report that Sharon felt that Hamas in Palestine was Sharon's hope for peace (just before his stroke), surprises me. Wonder what Sharon had in mind?

We need the UAE because we have airfields from which to target IRAN and Iraq. Is it possible that the business deal between DuBai and Bush had something to do with UAE's cooperation re: US using those airfields to target Iran and Iraq??

Also reading both stories: 1)DuBai is a done deal; 2) DuBai is selling out?.... and angry with US? Maybe US will not know for a long time the truth of the situation (like 50 years??)

Owner of US ports most probably will be Classified Information or buried in so much red tape and hierarchy, only those who"really need to know" will know who owns our ports. Seems other ports not just east US coast but west and north, are already owned by DuBai. Where is that article in the news? Seems to me the articles re: DuBai selling out is "splitting hairs" about who really owns what and who controls what. (Remember Gov. Wallace who continued to be gov via his wife.) Will look for supporting evidence tomorrow and post.

My 2 cents.

Just wondering.

4 posted on 03/11/2006 3:19:38 AM PST by twidle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PrinceOfCups
I think the American public outcry against the UAE ports deal sent a strong message to Islam:

"We are sick of your duplicity and hypocrisy. We don't trust you. Even if our President does."

5 posted on 03/11/2006 4:14:08 AM PST by manwiththehands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands

One of these days, those of us on the other side will be yelling I told you so. We need the UAE.

6 posted on 03/11/2006 4:27:50 AM PST by Coldwater Creek ("Over there, over there, We won't be back 'til it's over Over there.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: twidle; bayourant

To: Bayourant......"The only people from the region who stood up for them was Israeli interests"......

Sharon believed that peace was dependant on Hamas. Following are references to articles which I believe support Sharon's belief and possibility for reason Israel stood up for UAE (my opinion) and also thoughts well publicised that Israel could hit Iran easily and US wouldn't need to use their air fields in UAE. Who knows whats going on in Bush's mind. For sure, he wanted the Dubai to own those ports and now he's backed down?? Figure he has a (secret) plan. excerpt dated June 05, 2002 by Ray Hanania, entitled "How Sharon and Likud Party Nurtured Rise of Hamas" ......extremist responses to one another dated Feb.27, 2006 Excerpt entitled "What's Needed from Hamas" written by Henry A. Kissinger..."Whatever happens, whoever governs Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the parties will be impelled by their closeness to one another to interact on a range of issues including crossing points, work permits and water usage. These de facto relationships might be shaped into some agreed international framework, in the process testing Hamas's claims of a willingness to discuss a truce. A possible outcome of such an effort could be an interim agreement of indefinite duration. Both sides would suspend some of their most intractable claims on permanent borders, on refugees and perhaps on the final status of the Arab part of Jerusalem. Israel would withdraw to lines based on the various formulas evolved since Camp David and endorsed by American presidents. It would dismantle settlements beyond the established dividing line. The Hamas-controlled government would be obliged to renounce violence. It would also need to agree to adhere to agreements previously reached by the PLO. A security system limiting military forces on the soil of the emerging Palestinian state would be established. State-sponsored propaganda to undermine the adversary would cease.

Such a long-term interim understanding would build on the precedent of the Israeli-Syrian disengagement agreement, which has regulated the deployment of forces in the Golan Heights since 1974 amid disputes on a variety of other issues and Syria's failure to recognize Israel.

***NOTE:Whether Hamas can be brought to such an outcome or any negotiated outcome depends on unity among the quartet and, crucially, on the moderate Arab world.***End NOTE It also remains to be seen whether the Israeli government emerging from the March 28 elections will have Sharon's prestige and authority to preserve Sharon's strategy, to which the acting prime minister, Ehud Olmert, has committed himself. A diplomatic framework is needed within which Israel can carry out those parts of the road map capable of unilateral implementation, and the world community can strive for an international status that ends violence while leaving open the prospect of further progress toward permanent peace."

NOTE: My belief is most important reason Israel backed UAE.

7 posted on 03/11/2006 4:40:30 AM PST by twidle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: twidle

Good post alot to chew on there. I was not familar with Sharon and his views of Hamas and hoe they might be used in a end game. He was a pretty shrewd operator. THere is something def going on behind the scenes here. It seemed that alot of taditional Jewish voices here were silent when the conservatives here were talking about the UAE and Hammas. Perhaps they were told to back off by Israel. Interesting.

8 posted on 03/11/2006 1:12:01 PM PST by bayourant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson