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.
thanks. i didn't think dubai would allow pro-israel sites.
but dubai does allow an ISP to host a HAMAS site.
the pro-dubai people on this thread still haven't answered this problem. (they are mainly responding by dodging such issues and resorting to name calling.)
i wonder why?
thanks for that post.
"Terminal Operator: Whether a person or a corporation, the terminal operator is responsible for operating its particular terminal within the port. The terminal operator is responsible for the area within the port that serves as a loading, unloading, or transfer point for the cargo. This includes storage and repair facilities and management offices. The cranes they use may be their own, or they may lease them from the port authority."
it appears that the UAE company will be running a number of terminals within each of the 6 ports.
i had to go to the airport to pick up my daughter.
from cannoneer's post, it looks like the dubai company will be running terminals at the ports.
That is all they will be running. They will not be running the ports or be running the security in the ports.
Go away newbie.
no--the post from canoneer appears to say that the dubai company will be in control of a number of terminals at each of the ports.
if dubai allows HAMAS to operate via an ISP there, but won't let Israel do the same (as another poster has stated), i would say keep them away from the terminals.
hamas has killed americans.
if dubai will denounce hamas for its terrorist activities, and stop allowing them to use the dubai-based isp, i would probably stop any vocal objection to the deal.
They will operate commercial terminals, businesses, located within ports. The ports themselves will continue to be run by the local port authority and various federal agencies.
Been a while since I've seen so many newbies popping out of the woodwork. And armed with talking points already. lol
i think the pros have answered a lot of the objections, but i still haven't seen a really convincing or serious answer to the fact that the gov of dubai bans israelis but allows hamas to operate the web site.
there is something very wrong with that.
Only the left in the Mainstream media can make any sense of this miraculous change of heart with liberals taking on our war against terror.
well, goodnite. i'll check back tomorrow.
Oh, I have no doubt you will. I also have no doubt you will be doing the same thing. I'll be seeing you.
It happened this week. It is an editorial in the WSJ today, and I just saw it on another thread, here. It was those youths from the banlieu that were torching cars, though apparently they were not all Muslims. The leader was arrested in Cote d'ivoire.
I appreciate the response. The UAE has all of the trappings of a 21st century nation, but obviously it is not the same as the US or Western Europe. Underneath that superficial modernity is an ancient culture that still maintains its old ways. Islam is at war with itself. It needs a reformation similar to what Christianity underwent hundreds of years ago. Still, Dubai and the UAE are something of an oasis in that part of the world. It is evolving.
Regards,
Kabar
P.S.--I am probably older than you are.
The U.A.E., and Dubai in particular, are an interesting case. I don't remember what the revenue sharing agreements were amongst the various emirates but if I recall correctly Dubai only had about 10 years worth of oil left when I was there. They should be running out around 2009. They are in a mad dash to convert to a service based economy before the tap runs dry, thus their move into just about everything, including port operations which I was loosely affiliated with there. I guess my question is what will the middle east do with what will be over 500 million people when all the oil runs out? I won't live that long but I think its a question the world should consider.
Because they are not to know about things like this by the law THEY enacted.
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.