Posted on 02/24/2006 4:45:51 PM PST by Frank T
Proponents of the Dubai Ports transaction make two main arguments that in their view prove conclusively that the deal is in the best interests of the United States: First, that guaranteeing our ports security means that they will remain in the hands of U.S. authorities and, second, that the UAE is a friendly country cooperating with the U.S. military in a variety of ways and thus contributing to the war on terror. What if, for the sake of argument, we agree that both of these assumptions are true, yet there are nonetheless compelling reasons to oppose the deal on national-security grounds.
There are at least two such reasons. The first one has to do with the nature of the UAE state and the philosophy of government it represents. Very simply, it is an authoritarian, anti-democratic polity that pursues policies that are the exact opposite of the model of democracy that we promote in Iraq and consider the basis of our strategy to transform the Middle East. It allows no political parties, dissent, or freedom of speech, unless it is anti-American or anti-Semitic; censors the Internet; and uses troglodyte sharia tenets to throw people in jail for crimes such as being homosexual. At the very least, our support for such a “stalwart friend” makes our pro-democracy stance look just a bit hypocritical; at worst it contributes to the growing hostility toward America. Virtually all recent opinion polls in the UAE have shown upward of 75 percent responding with a starkly negative opinion of America, even when compared to Osama bin Laden.
Much more serious than the nature of its government, though, is the evidence that the Emirates have for decades been one of the key financiers of radical Islamism and even outright terrorism. Indeed, if they have been a reliable friend and ally to anybody, it is to the House of Saud in its efforts to export the hateful Wahhabi creed worldwide. And it is this massive campaign over the years that has created the huge infrastructure of thousands of radical mosques, madrassas, Islamic centers, and “charities” that is the true breeding ground of hate, fanaticism, and terrorism.
Official information about these activities is, needless to say scarce, but even the little that does see the light of day indicates massive involvement. The monthly journal of the Muslim World League indicates that the UAE and the potentates ruling them have donated large sums of money to virtually all of the Saudi-controlled instruments of spreading radical Islam, such as the Muslim World League, the Islamic Development Bank, the World Council of Mosques, and the Islamic Solidarity Fund (ISF), etc., for nearly three decades now. The ISF alone, for instance, was given $500 million in 1980, according to the March 1981 issue of The MWL Journal.
Nor have UAE leaders been squeamish about financing radicalism in the United States itself. In 1980, again according to The MWL Journal, the president of the UAE, Sheikh Zayed, and the ruler of the Sharjah Emirate, Sheikh al-Qassimi, gave $4.5 million to Nation of Islam leader W. D. Muhammad, as part of a successful effort by the Saudis to convert the movement to Wahhabism. The result has been a radicalization that last year resulted in one of its leaders calling for jihad against the Los Angeles Police Department.
More recently, a $2.5 million donation by the late Sheikh Zayed to Harvard University for the establishment of an Islamic chair, had to be withdrawn after it became known that another Sheikh Zayed Center in UAE engaged in scientific activities such as proving that the U.S. masterminded the 9/11 attacks and that “Jews use gentile blood for holiday pastries.” None of this prevented the government of the Emirates from donating to Columbia University toward a chair for a militant Palestinian professor.
Finally, our good friends in the UAE are far from unwilling to engage in direct funding of terrorism. In 2000, as the so-called Second Intifada began, Saudi Arabia established the Al Aqsa and Intifada Fund designed to provide direct support to suicide bombers and their families. According to Arab sources, the UAE became the second-largest contributor to the $1 billion fund after Riyadh with a contribution of $150 million. If Washington’s policies in the Palestinian conflict are in shambles today with Hamas in power, more than a little credit is due to our friends in Saudi Arabia and UAE.
However the DP World controversy is resolved ultimately, it would have been worthwhile if it leads to a long-overdue debate on who really is friend and who is foe in the war on terror. It's something that we still do not seem to be quite sure about four and a half years after 9/11.
— Alex Alexiev is vice president for research at the Center for Security Policy.
No surprises here.
Guess I know which side FR is on this issue.
Why?
Liberal troll MurryMom can hang around here and post her BS, but a solid conservative FReeper gets eighty-sixed.
for nearly three decades now. The ISF alone, for instance, was given $500 million in 1980, according to the March 1981 issue of The MWL Journal.
Nor have UAE leaders been squeamish about financing radicalism in the United States itself. In 1980, again according
They're having to go back over 25 years to come up with something? You know, the world was a lot different of a place pre- and post- 9-11. I think a lot of govts. in the Middle East made deals with the devil out of mainly self-preservation, not through any real commitment to radical Islam that they've since learned were mistakes. Other regimes there have continued right on supporting terrorism. What matters to me is that they changed after 9-11 and all indications are for the UAE they have changed their ways.
Since 9-11, UAE central-bank officials have strengthened antimoney-laundering and terror-financing laws and have increased oversight of the financial system. Recently, the UAE has moved to the forefront of Gulf states in cooperating with U.S. diplomatic initiatives against terrorism and nuclear proliferation. In little-publicized missions, State and Treasury Department officials have been shuttling to the Emirates over the past two years to work out cooperation.
Only last week, the State Department's nonproliferation chief, Steven Rademake, was in Abu Dhabi seeking to coordinate new security initiatives. Current and former U.S. officials say the UAE has provided significant assistance both in passing along terrorism tips and in helping apprehend suspects. In the lead up to Sept. 11, UAE officials passed along information that led to the arrest of several "major terrorism suspects," said Mr. Kattouf, the former ambassador.
"These were not small fries." U.S. officials say that UAE has continued to pass along significant intelligence. The country was also the first in the region to implement the U.S. cargo-security initiative to prescreen containers destined for the U.S.
All that matters to me a lot more what someone in the UAE who is probably no longer even in power did 25+ years ago.
As for the argument about the UAE not being a democratic government, with the Brits now being out of the port operations business there aren't many if any democratic countries with these kinds of businesses. Certainly there are none in the US. Singapore is the most likely alternative that has a company like this, and Singapore isn't exactly a Jeffersonian democracy either. So I'm not sure what the alternative is according to this author.
If we cease to do business with nation's with less than savory regimes, we'll tank the US economy. That argument is extremely weak and silly.
Really? I find it to be the important part, as I subscribe to the conservative way of looking at things due to anti-authoritarianism. If conservatives aren't for fighting that then...
What about the fact that they already work terminals in TX, and Kuwait already works Terminals in NJ, and China works terminals in CA, as does Singapore
Roll backs?
If you want to make people angry, lie to them.
If you want to make them absolutely livid, then tell 'em the truth.
LOL, good one.
Yea lets kick out ALL these foreign companies and then what? No imports? No Ipods? No Shoes? No Computers? What American company is chomping at the bit to work with the Longshoreman Union?
I'm sure I'm not going to get the wording correct on this, but the voting records report for votes taken in the UN for 2005 are to be made public in March. I heard today on news radio that those records will show that of the 79 issures that were our issues the UAE voted against us 69 times, voted with us 5 times, abstained 10, and were absent 2 times.
That just doesn't sound like much of a friend to me.
I support much of what you have had to say in this post. It is to easy to just call them a anti-western muslim country that supports radical Islam. Some fail to realize that as they embrace new partnerships with western nations, that sink a lot of money into their pockets, they have no reason to support the Islamo radical movements. I can see the day coming when we shall be reading articles on how tough the UAE and states like Yemen will get regarding their loose visa controls for instance. These countries are modernizing at a rapid rate. They can little afford as the Saudis have found out, that there is any room for radical Islam to have a part in ruining their countries success in moving forward.
I read your post and immediately checked to see if you were still here. All clear!!!
>>FReeper Stellar Dendrite was banned. <<
You're kidding. Why?
What did Stellar Dendrite say?
I don't find this a simple issue one way or another, but when someone has to reach back to a time when we were shipping weapons to Iraq and supporting mujahadeen in Afganistan to dig up some dirt, the point might not be that strong to begin with.
CD
One more thing - the bases in UAE are some of the nicest in theater, and I'd sure hate to lose them over this...
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.