Posted on 02/25/2006 9:30:52 PM PST by Cornpone
WHAT IS TAKING place in Washington over the proposed takeover of container operations at six major ports in the US by a UAE-based company is nothing but a reflection of the real mindset of American politicians influenced by Israel into seeing Arab and Muslim countries as a security risk to the US after the Sept.11 attacks.
We in the Arab World have to draw our own lessons from the affair.
The UAE is involved in this particularly dispute. But there is no doubt that such deals involving any Arab or Muslim country would draw the same objection from American congress members.
Notwithstanding the sweet talk that American politicians give to us, it is a high probability that any other Arab-owned company would face rejection in the hypothesis that it secures a similar deal in the US.
The facts of the current dispute are clear:
Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the government of the emirate of Dubai, has signed a nearly $7 billion agreement with Britain's P&O to take over the shipping company's port operations around the world. The agreement is awaiting formal approval by a British court.
Under the agreement, DP World will also take over P&O's container operations in six major US ports that the British company had been operating for years. It is a natural transition of operations from one commercial entity which is bought by another.
US security agencies and departments will continue to be in absolute control of security at all ports in the US, including the six involved in the DP World agreement.
Nothing changes whatsover except that DP World will handle all incoming and outgoing containers, which are subject to routine scrutiny by US Customs and security officers from various agencies at the point of final entry and exit.
DP World will have no role whatsoever in any security aspect of the port. It is entirely an American affair.
There should be no hitch in the take-over if all these factors are taken into consideration by critics of the deal. Instead, they are citing "security concerns" and pointing out the UAE had recognised the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in the 90s.
What the critics are overlooking or deliberately ignoring is the excellent track record of the UAE.
The UAE was among the first in the Arab World to sign up in all measures aimed at tightening security and adopting anti-terrorism measures as suggested by the US following the Sept.11 attacks.
The UAE does not have a record of engaging itself in any extremist attacks or harbouring militants. On the contrary, the country has said it remains on high vigil and alert against extremists.
The UAE is among the leading voices of moderation in the Arab World and it has always followed a positive approach to Arab, regional and international issues.
If anything, the UAE, like Jordan, is known for advocating dialogue to resolve conflict, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere.
The UAE has signed bilateral extradition agreements with others and is also following its obligations under them without fail.
It is ridiculous at best to suggest that the UAE has links with extremism simply because extremist suspects happened to pass through the country on their way somewhere else.
Isn't primary that had the UAE had any inkling of their real intentions while they were present in UAE territory, then they would have been arrested and questioned?
Well, US security and intelligence agencies had tip-offs about an impending attack ahead of Sept.11, but they failed to take preventive action; so how anyone could blame others where they themselves had failed?
The key factor in the dispute over the DP World deal is that a commercial entity from an Arab Muslim country, seeking to build itself as a major player in the international market, is facing bitter opposition to a key project that would catapult it towards its strategic business objectives.
Indeed, not everyone critical of the DP World deal might be inclined to oppose it because of inherent hostility towards Arabs and Muslims.
They might indeed have concerns that they might see as genuine when seen from their perspective. That is where they needs to realise that the DP World-P&O deal as given clearance after a careful intelligence and security reivew.
There is a security system in place in the US, and that has vetted the deal. That should put to rest any "security" concerns, unless of course American congressmembers do not trust their own security arrangements.
If the latter is the case, then they should have no trust in their government either. That being not the case, the obvious conclusion is that Jewish-dominated political and business circles supported by vested interests are mobilising themselves against any effort by any Arab country to emerge into the international market and thus gain an influential role in world affairs whether it wants it or otherwise.
It is heartening to see that the Bush administration committed itself that the DP World takeover would go ahead although after a brief delay.
well if we turn the whole country to muslim ran countries we'll never be atacked again
now it all makes sense
Regardless of the contents of the article, I have a problem with the headline.
We are NOT selling ports!! The Dubai based company will only be managing some terminals in some ports, limited only to loading and unloading cargo. PERIOD!!
This has NOTHING to do with national security.
It has EVERYTHING to do with big labor unions!!
as always....."the JOOOOOOOZZZZZZ are to blame"...(rolling eyes)
Ah...you got the message.
President Bush was not served very well by his staff and cabinet because they left him in the dark on this issue... (even though it didn't rise to the Presidential level) he should have been made aware of this transaction.
The only way the Republicans can back off of the limb they finds themselves on is to conduct serious hearings and BLAST the Democrats for condemning racial profiling, yet demanding the Bush Administration practice it despite the fact that DPW was given the green light by the Commission the Congress mandated for these types of transactions
I see....So since there was an intelligence failure to act on bad intelligence in pre-9/11, it is our fault that Islamic Radicals killed thousands of people in New York.
Seems to me someone just slipped up and admitted who's on who's side when it comes to terrorism.
Don't blame the terrorists, blame the victim for allowing themselves to get attacked in the first place.
With that philosophy, then the U.S. is warranted in not allowing the UAE to control it's ports. If something happens again at a port, then the mindset in the middle east will be that the U.S. is again at fault for allowing it to happen.
This article seems kind of ...well ...silly.
You got it all figured out. This is all part of Bush's great plot to turn the U.S. into a 100% Muslim nation.
My comment is dripping with sarcasm.
Yep. The Republicans screwed up, and they know it. Frist, Santorum, Hastert have all gone silent and are looking for some kind of way to work this out.
Bush will bend over backward, again, so idiots like Lindsey Graham can take his foot out of his mouth.
"This has NOTHING to do with national security.
It has EVERYTHING to do with big labor unions!!"
well...from the left, it really is about the labor unions and their deep seated communist ideals of 'state ownership'..ie... government 'ownership', etc. From our side..it REALLY is about national security and a tad bit of Islamofascists phobia....lol. Sue me....lol..I don't relish the idea of Shariah law upsurping the United States of America's constitution down the road because of some 'international law' agreement...blahblahblah.
Oh... tell the guy who keeps telling us to read "UNHOLY ALLIANCE"...i got my copy today!! A mind bending and depressing accounting of the left's vaccuous agenda! GOD BLESS THIS COUNTRY AGAINST THOSE THAT SEEK TO DESTROY IT!
yawn
Excellent defense of your post /sarcasm
"I see....So since there was an intelligence failure to act on bad intelligence in pre-9/11, it is our fault that Islamic Radicals killed thousands of people in New York.
Seems to me someone just slipped up and admitted who's on who's side when it comes to terrorism.
Don't blame the terrorists, blame the victim for allowing themselves to get attacked in the first place.
With that philosophy, then the U.S. is warranted in not allowing the UAE to control it's ports. If something happens again at a port, then the mindset in the middle east will be that the U.S. is again at fault for allowing it to happen.
This article seems kind of ...well ...silly."
BUY David Horowitz's book: "UnHoly Alliance"..(Radical Islam and the American Left). This 'author' is only propogating the outright lies of our own academia(Chomsky, etc.) He thinks he sounds 'smart' by association. He is nothing but a parrot of our own LEFT!!.. Go get the book..it is an eye opener!
I'm with you. I've seen plenty of folks say why this port deal is no threat, I've bee called idiot and worse in other threads here on fr, and so forth. Yet what, we're supposed to find solace in US ports not being ran by the US? I do recall quite an uproar when Hutchison Whampoa took over operations of the Panama Canal. So how is this different? I think most folks in America are saying "Who? Taking over what? Whoa, let's wait a bit here..."
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.