Posted on 02/22/2006 11:50:17 AM PST by cgk
February 22, 2006,
2:12 p.m.
A disappointing and damaging response to the Dubai deal.
Islamophobia, not national security, is at the heart of the raging controversy on Capitol Hill over a United Arab Emirates-based company, Dubai Ports World, assuming ownership and management responsibilities at six major seaports in the United States. U.S. lawmakers might bristle at the thought of letting the UAE own and operate U.S. ports. After all, it was a citizen of the UAE, Marwan al Shehhi, who piloted United Airlines Flight 175 into the second World Trade Center tower, and it was through the banks of this country that the 9/11 attacks were partially financed. But their fiery rhetoric and threats of congressional action mask an increasingly patronizing racism fueled by illogical paranoia rooted in past events. Let's deal with what the UAE is now.
Simply put, the reaction to the Dubai deal is un-American.
President Bush has therefore rightly threatened to veto any attempts to block the Dubai deal, although Congress, eager to insure the burden of responsibility falls squarely on his shoulders if another terrorist attack takes place on American soil, is sure to force him to pull out the presidential ink pen next week.
Congressional moves to reverse the administration's support for an Arab company to run American ports exposes dangerous prejudices in America's dealings with important Muslim countries at the time when they are needed most as front-line allies to fight terrorism. In Dubai's case, this reality is reflected by deep suspicions that the sheikdom's cordial relations with leading state sponsors of terrorism, like Iran, might somehow become the basis for DP World's port operations allowing nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons to be smuggled into the U.S. in ship containers from unregulated ports.
Dubai, known for innovative investing in antiterrorist technology, should be encouraged to fund and deploy a revolutionary array of security initiatives, such as neutron pulse scanners and smart container-tracking chips that can track and detect illicit materials in cargo containers. U.S. technology is already being developed in prototype form to create CAT-scan-like reports identifying nuclear and chemical materials inside containers in less than two minutes, without opening them or materially affecting port management economics. Rather than penalize Dubai for suspicions no one can prove, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security should find a common investment and implementation basis with DP World for moving such technology development forward at a more rapid pace.
Simple corporate restructuring of the deal could also address concerns over how foreign-government-owned businesses are allowed to exert control in operating U.S. ports. DP World's operations could be conducted under a U.S.-limited liability company framework with two classes of shares — voting and non-voting. DP World would own 100 percent of the non-voting shares, which in turn would accrue 99 percent of the deal's economic benefits. The voting-rights shares would be 100 percent owned by U.S. citizens with one percent of the economic benefits. The voting shares would have sole authority to set port operations policies, and importantly, to change any policy promulgated by DP World deemed a threat to national security.
Under such a proposal, the U.S. shareholders could be, for example, the chief-executive officeholders of the port authorities that DP World proposes to manage, along with a few presidential appointees, such as former law-enforcement officials, to provide oversight. Such arrangements already serve to channel important investment into private U.S. companies engaged in sensitive technology development that are regulated by International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Port security, as opposed to a port's commercial activities that DP World would be responsible for, will remain the task of the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs Service.
Such changes would not be discriminatory going forward — even a British company, like the ports' present management owners, Peninsular and Oriental, would also be subjected to the new regime.
Washington's bout with Islamophobia also ignores the reality of Dubai's future direction. A metropolis already, it is rapidly becoming the prototype city-state that could serve as an important example for the future in Muslim societies bedeviled by high unemployment, low literacy rates, bad trade policies, and authoritarian political structures. It is managed and led by a cadre of young, highly educated Arab and Muslim professionals who seek to transform the world's stereotype of Islam by developing and running businesses transparently, with integrity and with an increasingly democratic and accountable corporate culture.
Whatever the UAE's policies in the pre-9/11 world (whether as home to A. Q. Khan's illicit nuclear network, one of three Taliban embassies, questionable banking practices, or as an alleged repository for Iranian-terror funds), Dubai's record under these young leaders in the post 9/11 world reflects serious and structural change in national strategy. As Jim Robbins noted Tuesday, in December 2004, Dubai was the first Middle East government to accept the U.S. Container Security Initiative as policy to screen all containers for security hazards before heading to America. In May 2005, Dubai signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy to prevent nuclear materials from passing through its ports. It also installed radiation-detecting equipment — evidence of a commitment to invest in technology. In October 2005, the UAE Central Bank directed banks and financial institutions in the country to tighten their internal systems and controls in their fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.
These are not the actions of a terror-sponsoring state.
The Dubai port deal could also serve to increase the depth and breadth of people-to-people contacts between America and important Muslim countries in the Reaganesque "trust but verify" mold. It is useful in this regard to remember the example of the U.S. International Military Education and Training (IMET) program, which for decades has trained foreign armies in unstable countries to stay out of politics and improved U.S. understanding of complex societies. It seems patently hypocritical that America wants democracy in the Middle East, champions capitalism and global integration, pushes for reform, transparency, and anti-corruption practices in business, and then turns around and tells those who are practicing what America preaches, Sorry, we think you folks are a bunch of terrorists, so we don't want you on our shores and don't trust you running our ports.
It is understandable that American politicians would want to seek clarifications, safeguards, and accountability on the DP World deal in honor of all those who were mercilessly murdered on that tragic September morning. But the best way to honor their memories is to use the Dubai deal as a model to build effective bridges to the Arab and Muslim world — as we did in Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan — instead of erecting barriers that reveal America's paranoia and fear about some Islamist doomsday scenario no one can predict, all the while alienating the very people we need to help raise up the Muslim world's disaffected so they are not so desperate to tear us down.
— Mansoor Ijaz is chairman of Crescent Investment Management LLC, a New York private equity firm developing homeland-security technologies related to Internet security, air and seaport-cargo security, and airship-surveillance technologies. He also serves as chief executive of Crescent Hydropolis Resorts, a London Stock Exchange (AIM) quoted company that is developing the world's first permanent underwater living facilities, including a planned location in Dubai.
There will be a backlash against Schumer, Clintoon and certain knee-jerk light-weight Republicans.
Nope. I really hate the racist argument pulled out of the hat to deflect what are legitimate concerns.
Deceitful, untrue, and used by the right it is just as digusting as when it is used by the left.
You like maybe they should burn our money to stay warm? It would be nice if we didn't alienate the 3 remaining friends we have in the region. It's not like our national survival isn't tied to the UAE, SA and Iraq being our gas station for the next 20 years. And yeah we do look like xenophobic a-holes. Bin Laden would like for their 1-2% crazies to turn 100% of us on their legitimate institutions.
Well, until UAE explains why they were only 1 of 3 countries in the WORLD to recognize the Taliban government, why they shut down our FBI following of money that funded the 9/11 hijackers from UAE, why the UAE leaders were meeting in 1999 with Osama and Clinton refused a CIA hit because they were there....
Just a few facts that fail to be dealt with because it may "offend" them.
Mansoor is seldom wrong about such matters.
The facts is this - we buy more stuff than we sell. If we want our credit to remain good we have to open markets for foreigners to invest. These people do ports. Possession is 9/10 of ownership. The Phillipinos do ports. Greeks too. You think there aren't radical Phillipinos? You think the enemy couldn't import whatever they need today through legit port channels? Puleese. Our economy is built on openness. You get effective port control and your stuff just got 20% more expensive, minimum.
Spoken like a true Democrat Party plantation overseer.
This is my biggest fear about this entire deal -- that the administration didn't understand how upsetting this would be to people and assign a point person to explain all the details regarding the ports and now our one reasonably dependable ally in the region, the UAE, will be so upset with the reaction of Americans that it will turn them firmly against us.
He's wrong. There's nothing racist or phobic about the reaction to the port buyout. When the average American discovers that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the Emirates, his antennae go way, way up...as they should. It's the administration's fault for not explaining the deal to America, also explaining how important our relationship with the Emirates is, how they've helped us in the fight against terrorism...at considerable danger to themselves. Really stupid of the Bush administration.
Agreed - the notion of "racism" being played up here is wrong - (interestingly enough...it is the MSM who are trying to "hype" the situation in somewhat of a racial or "profiling" tone.....yet they won't push such an agenda in any other legitimate area).
Nonetheless.
While the "racism" argument is foolish.
Those against allowing this UAE company to purchase these said ports...are also completely foolish. And ill-informed about the realities.
They too are trying to "hype" their support of "national security" when in all reality these ports being owned by a UAE will do absolutely nothing in terms of changing our security here. Absolutely nothing will change. We will be just as secure with a UAE company owning these ports as we are today with a British company owning them.
The deal will go through, but safeguards and fed oversight must be explained to the public.
No flying planes into buildings and killing 3,000 innocent citizens is un-American. Suicide bombers and kidnappers who saw off the heads of innocent hostages in the name of Allah is un-American. Americans have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to this issue. We were attacked, we are at war and a country at war must make make un PC decisions when it comes to national security. Maybe one day there will be a time when this deal will make sense but now is not that time. Personally I hope Americans stand up and use this issue as a spark to go even further in the defense of America. Next let's go after those who want to maintain our weak border security policies!
Did you ever see the movie, Rocky 4?
Rocky gives a little speech about change at the end of the fight climax.
Things change.
Look at Kaddafi in Libya.
Not to mention recent polls that 86% of the people in the UAE strongly dislike the US.
For this, we're going to let them into our port system?
Islamophobia would mean an irrational fear, our fears are quite rational and based on fact.
Boo-hoo-hoo. Get yer hankie, Monsoor.
I can think of at least 3,000 reasons why Americans might be just a touch "islamophobic".
Why not just open an express lane into the ports marked "Terrorists Only"?
This proprosal stinks to high heaven, and the President's stubborn defense of it stinks even worse.
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.