Posted on 03/03/2006 11:05:54 AM PST by Tarnsman
A friend, usually most interested in a newspaper's business section, e-mailed his take on the Dubai Ports World issue and asked, "Is this the international equivalent of driving while black, only shipping while Arab?"
Though the ongoing debate is a complex intersection of foreign investment, homeland security and government secrecy issues, it is hard to ignore the suggestion of racial profiling or the wider implications for American policy in the Middle East.
After all, 80 percent of the ports in the United States are managed by foreign companies. A stevedorer partially owned by the Chinese government runs operations at Long Beach, Calif., the second- busiest port in the U.S., with little fanfare or concern. Other companies from Asia and Europe, some government-owned and many with huge Arab and Muslim communities and known jihadist cells, do the same on the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts.
Yet for the past two weeks not just DP World but the entire United Arab Emirates have been labeled by some as terrorist sponsors, Taliban apologists and unreliable U.S. allies. This is just wrong, according to those who deal with the Emirates on military, intelligence and national security issues and know the country to be a solid partner in the war on terrorism.
So much so that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have turned their sights on the UAE, threatening the country specifically for maintaining a cooperative relationship with the U.S.
What started it all were inaccurate reports suggesting an Arab company "taking over" or "buying" ports in the United States. As part of a $6.8 billion acquisition of the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., DP World will inherit contracts to manage cargo operations at ports in Brooklyn, Newark, New Orleans, Miami, Philadelphia and Baltimore.
Commercial arrangements, union contracts, relationships with port authorities, U.S. government- required security standards, U.S. Coast Guard oversight and the people running day-to-day operations at these ports will not change. Yes, two Sept. 11 hijackers were from the UAE. But lesser known is that when the Emirates government learned two of its own were part of the attack it committed troops to fight alongside American soldiers in Afghanistan.
No rationalizing about motives, no suggesting Israeli Mossad or CIA conspiracies, no avoiding responsibility. The UAE was the only Arab and Muslim country to stand shoulder to shoulder with the U.S -- a display all too rare in the Middle East.
The UAE is now hugely helpful in tracking terrorist funds, and intelligence officials confirm that Dubai serves as a waypoint from which the U.S. can more easily identify and understand who and what al Qaeda is deploying internationally.
When the Department of Homeland Security started the container security initiative to make sure cargo was reliably screened for radiological bombs, smuggled weapons or other terror threats, Dubai was the first foreign port to sign on. The country is a high traffic port of call for U.S. Navy ships, including aircraft carriers and submarines.
If we trust UAE ports to host our nuclear-powered vessels and we trust their cities with our sailors -- plus they enforce the highest cargo security measures set by the U.S. -- we should be able to trust them with basic port services like loading and unloading ships here.
In many ways, the UAE has emerged as just the kind of country the U.S. seeks to nurture in the Arab world -- religiously tolerant, economically open, balancing modern social and business forces with traditional Islamic values and lifestyles.
Politicians, perhaps reflecting what one conservative writer called "the dogs of anti-Arab prejudice" unleashed by a White House incessantly beating the war-on-terror drums, may have forgotten that the UAE is the closest to an ideal Arab partner the U.S. can rely on today and about as pro-American as you can get in the Arab world. If we cannot do business with the UAE, the U.S. has no real hope for any success among Muslim nations.
The love-hate relationship between the U.S. and the Arab world is sometimes summed up as half the people wanting to bomb American embassies and the other half wanting visas from them. Yet instead of holding up the UAE as a beacon of prosperity and diversity for more of the Middle East to emulate, the U.S. risks humiliating an ally and grouping tolerant Dubai with darker Islamic forces we hope to isolate or enlighten.
When a solid, reliable U.S. friend in the strategically important and politically volatile Middle East can't get fair, trusting treatment in Washington, there's no hope for winning the battle for the hearts, minds and future of the Arab world that we are now waging.
Richard Klein served in the U.S. Departments of State and Commerce and is now director for the Middle East and Arabian Gulf at Kissinger McLarty Associates in Washington.
Personally, I don't like the fact that an American asset is being managed by ANY foreign company, but until our politicians step up and removed all the tax, regulation and legal hurdles that prevent US companies from competing for this type of business I guess we all have to swallow our pride and accept the fact that foreigners are going to do the job. And by all accounts DWP does an outstanding job. Sad to realize that US ports and ships are being run by foreigners, and that this didn't happen overnight. Perhaps that is where the real debate should take place: what needs to done so that American companies can get back in the game? The answer should be interesting.
This article -- and your follow up post -- are probably about the most intelligent and accurate I have read regarding this deal.
Unfortunately, there are some that simply refuse to to listen to reason, even when all of the facts are laid out. It's very sad.
Its not very sad. There hasn't been much information put out there for us to judge. Its been mostly talking points, and more talking points, from both sides of the argument.
That said, this is a good article, the kind of information I'm looking for. I would like to know more about who is presently managing our ports, what "managing" them means, how does a change of ownership affect port operations if at all. That kind of dispassionate detail would help a lot of us to make up our minds, without the need to question our intelligence.
Hell, there is strong anti-Americanism among Congressional Democrats.
Which pales in comparison to college professor and wannabe high school geography teacher.
General Franks
An excellent explanation of why we should use strategic thining, instead of hysteria, to make a decision.
Thanks for posting this.
Excellent article.
We manage our ports through the local port authorities.
Foreigners control operations at some terminals.
We control security.
Thank you.
You are welcome.
The same thing goes on at airports where foreign airlines operate their terminals but we control the airport.
They are running terminals, not the ports. That said, I agree with your sentiments whole heartedly. Maybe we should look into slowly unwinding this and getting US companies only, in charge of these operations. Give them some incentives.
Thanks for posting this article...
Kissinger Mclarty Associates? That's interesting; they are paid shills, though of course, in this case, their own corporate policy should come into play since they claim to do no work for foreign governments, only for foreign corporations.
The race card again Sigh! Maybe someone should inform the author that it is the Arab nations that harbor the terrorists who threaten to kill us and impose an Islamic theocracy on the world.
We can't discriminate against Arabs blah blah.. Yes we can and should it is where the terrorist come from! Those that can't see the difference between Arab nations and other foreign nations need to pull their heads out!
It might be a bit much to swallow, however, if we found that only the French were operating the American Airlines terminal, where US Mail comes in regularly.
It's harder for Bush to sell an UAE to an American that knows that Bush's "It's a religion of peace!" is bull hockey. I wish The White House would get off this "it's a religion of peace" malarkey and start saying "well we don't really have any official statement as to what it is, but for jack sure if it is trying to attack us we are against it."
No, I'm afraid this isn't about pride. This is about national security. And some people have been 'bipartisanly' asleep at the wheel for way too long.
Excellent points. (IMO, dhimmitude is a nonstarter, though.)
When uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield, when the enemy is brutal, subhuman and not detered by MAD, the threat of global conflagration is real. I've always secretly concluded--feared-- that because of this, mass genocide will necessarily be the endgame; it will be either preemptive to limit the death of innocents, or defensive when we are staring annihilation in the face.
The strategic importance of Dubai in fact and as a prototype is precisely why Bush should never have allowed this issue to develop in the first place. I say this for three reasons:
What could Bush have been thinking? Was he thinking at all?
BREAKING! (video)-CLINTON IS A PAID AGENT OF THE CROWN PRINCE OF DUBAI: Dick Morris
deterred ;)
I'm sure that Gov Arnie would be very surprised to hear that China 'occupies' the port of LA . . .
Yah, and "Bush is Selling Ports to Arabs" too.
Lies and 'scary looking pictures' are not gonna win this argument for you -- you're gonna have to find some evidence of wrongdoing by the individuals running this company to kill the deal.
Ball's in your court.
"This strategy is truly our only hope unless we're prepared to engage in mass genocide."
I agree with your overall summary - but this line stuck out for me. Those that oppose this deal need to think where this ends if we aren't careful - I know there are folk on FR who would be all up for a Crusade/Muslim Holocaust or whatever - but personally I would rather we find a smarter way. Many billion muslims are not going to vanish from the face of the planet overnight. We need to encourage muslimto bahave and act in a more secular manner (like say Turkey) and keep them away from the Iranian model (or worse the Taliban model!). Navigating this minefield is the greatest challenge facing us today.
Here is why I have a problem with those who are still resisting this.
They claim this... that.... and they want it done the way they see it and they know they are right.
Well, this should point out that most of those people are that way due to one thing. Ignorance.
The DEAL IS ALREADY DONE. It is in effect. If you aren't aware of this, you really have no business telling others anything. (not meaning you specifically, DH)
In the US, yes, but I can see this happening in european countries.
When uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield, when the enemy is brutal, subhuman and not detered by MAD, the threat of global conflagration is real. I've always secretly concluded--feared-- that because of this, mass genocide will necessarily be the endgame; it will be either preemptive to limit the death of innocents, or defensive when we are staring annihilation in the face.
God bless W. He really thinks he can save the world.
The strategic importance of Dubai in fact and as a prototype is precisely why Bush should never have allowed this issue to develop in the first place.
The PR was bungled badly and at least he cut off his direct conection to this early so he can back away in the end if it ends up being a loser. I keep harkening back to his first statement on this issue which was to the effect that he was "trying to conduct foreign policy here." I looked at his quote and knew I was right in my analysis.
bttt
SPOT ON!
Regarding dhimmitude, I was talking US. Agree about Europe. (In fact, one could argue it's already happening there.) ;)
Regarding the ports, ignorance of the deal is no defense. The buck will always stop with the chief executive... and the perceived homeland-security softness (and cluelessness) will accrue to the GOP.
As for Bush "trying to conduct foreign policy here," surely he knows foreign policy and national defense and homeland security (and winning elections and winning the war) are not discrete entities. Sometimes keeping your eye on the ball prevents you from seeing the big picture. And sometimes 'sticking to your principles' results in a mental rigidity that results in flawed analyses.
It is unfortunate that all of Bush's successes fighting this war must be kept secret whereas all of his apparent goofs are exposed and embellished and repeated ad nauseam by the Democrats and their useful-idiot comrades in the press. The pressures on Bush must be enormous. It hurts to be critical of him. But sometimes we must.
I think there’s a judgment underlying these choice of words that needs to be examined. The noble reverence associated with “gut level”, “instinctive”, “survival”, “common sense” verse “arcane explanations” isn’t supported. Alternatively, “gut level” could be described as “emotional”, “reactionary” and “short sighted”.
As conservatives, we promote policies that defy our gut level feelings, springing from experience and reason. For instance, guts gravitate toward an endless list of social programs, but our minds and experience guide us through more effective capitalist based economic policies.
The Bush doctrine was uniquely founded on robbing terrorists of state, political and financial support. That means not just militarily overthrowing the extremes like Saddam and the Taliban, but politically twisting arms to cripple their support and promoting stability through capitalism and freedom in fence sitting Muslim nations.
I’m sure Bush is aware that hardened islamist terrorists are undeterred by MAD, but he recognizes that we’d create many million more by the kind of aggression needed to bring most to submission. Instead, the Bush doctrine is to drain them of their life’s blood, isolating them into and ineffectual under funded underclass that neither prospers nor inspires others. One critical foundation of that is offer trade as an alternative to militancy to friendly nations, organizations and people.
“That’s” what Bush is thinking when he trusts his administrators to vet out Arab companies for exclusion from such things as terminal administration contracts. He probably assumed that after 4 years of debating the Bush doctrine, enough of America understood and bought into it so that he didn’t need a public relations liaison in each department reviewing each major contract like this. Looks like he was wrong.
I don’t know if this “terminal operations management lease” will go through in its current form. It’s a gold mine for opponents able to convince people reacting with their guts that it’s a “port purchases” by a pro-Taliban regime.
:-)
It is interesting how these folks have somehow missed the point that the ball is in their court -- the burden of proof is on them.
" The reaction is at gut level. Instinctive. When the survival mechanism kicks in, no amount of reasoned argument will work. Common sense and the survival instinct will trump arcane explanations every time… What could Bush have been thinking? Was he thinking at all?"--me
I think there's a judgment underlying these choice of words that needs to be examined. The noble reverence associated with "gut level", "instinctive", "survival", "common sense" verse "arcane explanations" isn't supported. Alternatively, "gut level" could be described as "emotional", "reactionary" and "short sighted".--you
"Survival instinct" isn't being ennobled. it just is. My point is we must recognize it and understand that it is not amenable to rational argument.
And, of course, the survival instinct is 'emotional' and 'reactionary' and 'short sighted.' If it were not all those things, it wouldn't work!
As conservatives, we promote policies that defy our gut level feelings, springing from experience and reason. For instance, guts gravitate toward an endless list of social programs, but our minds and experience guide us through more effective capitalist based economic policies.--you
That is all well and good, but the problem is not everyone is a conservative. To retain control of the prosecution of this war, we must convince NON-CONSERVATIVES that we are the better choice--indeed, that we are the only choice.
The Bush doctrine was uniquely founded on robbing terrorists of state, political and financial support. That means not just militarily overthrowing the extremes like Saddam and the Taliban, but politically twisting arms to cripple their support and promoting stability through capitalism and freedom in fence sitting Muslim nations.I'm sure Bush is aware that hardened islamist terrorists are undeterred by MAD, but he recognizes that we'd create many million more by the kind of aggression needed to bring most to submission. Instead, the Bush doctrine is to drain them of their life's blood, isolating them into and ineffectual under funded underclass that neither prospers nor inspires others. One critical foundation of that is offer trade as an alternative to militancy to friendly nations, organizations and people.--you
I'm a great supporter of The Bush Doctrine. Get the Democrats elected, however, and you can kiss the Bush Doctrine goodbye. The Bush Doctine is built on two pillars, one -- that the United States must maintain its absolute military superiority in every part of the world, and second -- that the United States has the right for preemptive action. Now, both these propositions, taken on their own, are quite valid propositions, but if you put them together, they establish two kinds of sovereignty in the world, the sovereignty of the United States, which is inviolate, not subject to any international constraints, and the rest of the world, which is subject to the Bush Doctrine. To me, it is reminiscent to [sic] George Orwell's "Animal Farm," that "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous. Apparently missing the irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire nation. "Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the its porcine manifestation.
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)
by Mia T, 6.04.04
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
eorge Soros could not have more clearly enunciated the lethal danger that he and John Kerry and the clintons and the rest of his leftist cabal pose for America.
"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004
"That's" what Bush is thinking when he trusts his administrators to vet out Arab companies for exclusion from such things as terminal administration contracts. He probably assumed that after 4 years of debating the Bush doctrine, enough of America understood and bought into it so that he didn't need a public relations liaison in each department reviewing each major contract like this. Looks like he was wrong.I don't know if this "terminal operations management lease" will go through in its current form. It's a gold mine for opponents able to convince people reacting with their guts that it's a "port purchases" by a pro-Taliban regime.--you
You underscore another criticism. It should have been obvious that this deal was much too easy to demagogue.
My personal view is that post-9/11, all vital infrastructure must be owned AND operated by American entities. Build trade relationships with the non-vital stuff. (For a humor break, check out posts 178, 179 and 180.)
People will always react with their gut on matters of survival. That's the way instincts were designed to work.
Survival instincts dictate things like fight or flight in face of a charging animal, not imposing new trade barriers on the UAE. That also involves some degree of reason.
If the opposition to this contract was just from the left, leverage our survival instincts against Bush, we could easily leverage them back by painting the left as playing politics with national security. But just as many conservatives don’t get this leg of the Bush Doctrine either, equating its opposition with “common sense”.
Now the administration has to not only paint the left as dangerous opportunists hijacking votes from demagoguery (a common perception), but much of the right as bull-headed reactionaries (another common perception). If done correctly, this is not a loser for Bush at all. Both oppositions are abhorrent to the survival instincts of the middle. It’s a big maybe, but Bush could end up once again turning the tables and coming off as very measured, principled and resolved while using the opportunity to educate America on the doctrine from which behind this war is executed.
As I stated in my first post on this thread, from a diplomatic perspective, the president's hands are tied when it comes to telling the American people the true rationale behind his decision- the War on Terror is ultimately a War on Islam. The best he can hope for is that the talking heads bring it to light, the public understands, and the president is able to deny it publicly.
As Ann Coulter has stated prviously, we should convert them to Christianity. That's my preferred methodology and I'm quite certain that's what W is thinking too.
Although in a larger philosophical sense this war is spawned from a figurative war between the enlightenment of the West and Islamic fundamentalism , that doesn’t translate a physical war against a religion. Just as we do not prosecute thoughts, no matter how twisted, we don’t declare war on ideas. We’re a free country, without any legal, military or historical recognition of the right to police beliefs. Islam as a religion is just that so we are not at war with it.
We are only at war with international terrorists and those who act to assist them. I agree that Bush has to walk a fine line to keep us from aligning Muslims, strategically avoiding actions that would punish our enemy in the sort run but radically alienate the Muslim world. But please don’t confuse that with us secretly being at war with Islam.
I think all religions and ideologies are about how we live our lives, but recognize that Islam is more challenged to bend secular state institutions than most. That’s discussed in the short essay I last linked to.
Survival instincts dictate things like fight or flight in face of a charging animal, not imposing new trade barriers on the UAE. That also involves some degree of reason. If the opposition to this contract was just from the left, leverage our survival instincts against Bush, we could easily leverage them back by painting the left as playing politics with national security. But just as many conservatives don't get this leg of the Bush Doctrine either, equating its opposition with "common sense". Now the administration has to not only paint the left as dangerous opportunists hijacking votes from demagoguery (a common perception), but much of the right as bull-headed reactionaries (another common perception). If done correctly, this is not a loser for Bush at all. Both oppositions are abhorrent to the survival instincts of the middle. It's a big maybe, but Bush could end up once again turning the tables and coming off as very measured, principled and resolved while using the opportunity to educate America on the doctrine from which behind this war is executed.--you Common sense tells us that there are so many layers, so many variables, no one can possibly define--much less control--all possible risks. Common sense tells us that dubious (no pun intended) characters and countries involved in vital infrastructure increase risk by definition. (If you listened closely to Rush Limbaugh today, you would have heard him say that the ports deal doesn't increase risk appreciably. He did not say the ports deal is without increased risk.) That the usual clintonoid suspects (clinton, clinton, Albright, Bill Cohen, Vernon Jordan) are in on the action should give you pause
"Survival instinct" isn't being ennobled. it just is. My point is we must recognize it and understand that it is not amenable to rational argument.--me
The ports deal uproar is really not about trade. Survival is the undeniable subtext, which means instinct and common sense rule.
Instinct is just a primitive drive that just tells us to do things like hold our breath when underwater.
Common sense is just simple lessons learned from experience. Common sense tells us that if we screw over an ally in war, we won’t have an ally.
Reason, rather than common sense has time on its side during a 45 day review period. Reason tells us that our success is dependent on containing Islamism from the wider Muslim world. OBL and friends bet the farm that we can’t act reasonably, and that we’ll sink to acting reactively and drive Islam to Islamism. I think most of us have enough common sense to avoid doing that.
Precisely. The instinct to survive is arguably the most primitive.
You are looking at this as a well-informed citizen. Of the half of Americans who vote, most are uninformed or disinformed. Most are 'drive-by' voters. They will be impelled by instinct and a common sense mediated by that ignorance or disinformation. They will 'hold their breath' and vote for the lifeguard.
And as for 'screwing allies,' as I've argued before and elsewhere, the damage is already done. The uproar did the damage. The outcome of the uproar is irrelevant. Dubai has lost face in front of the entire world.
Maybe you know much more about Emirate society than I, but commons sense doesn’t support the first statement (if material) leading to the second. Another word for “uproar” is “battle”. Battles have two sides. Rather than just focus on the half empty side, notice the unprecedented praise, recognition and commitment to the UAE across the administration.
As you’ve noted, primitive cognition (instinct and to some degree common sense) is manipulated by fear, but there’s plenty to fear from the opponents. An alignment of the left and reactionary right can be made challenging to sell as lifeguards. Besides just fear, we offer hope and are more reasonable. We’ll see how that stands up to the opportunists and reactionaries over the next couple of months.
Anyone can pull off drive-bys. The left’s frequent resort to them is evidence of their losing hand and desperation. They’re reduced to accepting the consequences. 45 days of drive-bys risks a lot of backlash. The more I think about it, the less I’d tactically want to trade places with them
bookmark
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.