Jump to navigation
Loaded Q & A: Dubai
R. Alex Whitlock
Q: There has been a lot of talk and objections to giving administrative control of our ports over to a company of the United Arab Emirates. As far as Middle Eastern countries go, of course, the UAE has been one of the most capitalist-minded and more uniformly supportive of our War on Terror than just about any other save Israel. So the question is whether, considering UAE's relative support for us and the fact that our government will still be controlling customs, is there a more clear way of demonstrating (a) how little faith we have in our customs systems and (b) that no matter how much any Middle Eastern country resists the anti-American tide over there, as long as they are Arabs and Muslims we will view any and all of their kind with abject suspicion?
A: No.
Bonus Loaded Q & A:
Q: How do you reward a nation that is surrounded by hostile states, hosts your armed services in said hostile region, has been threatened by your mortal enemy for being too friendly to you, put its citizens in mortal danger when traveling throughout the rest of the Middle East, helped facilitate the CIA's infiltration of a terrorist's network, hosts port calls for your military, has embraced trade and capitalism moreso than almost all of its neighbors, and tightened its bank regulations in response to 9/11? [
1] [
2]
A: Equate it with a terrorist state. [
3]
Observations
Given UAE's connections to terrorist organizations (money laundering through their banking system and so forth) and pronouncements on their state-run TV stations too, a misleading and incorrect Q&A as well.
Look hard enough for terrorist connections and you can find them anywhere, not the least of which London.
The extent differs. It's not nearly the banking system that bothers me (heck, that probably involves Switzerland too and many other nations, it's the nature of international banking), it's their state-run media.
The BBC may have their heads stuck where the sun don't shine, but they're not actively pro-Jihad.
Eh. If the UAE is intent or in favor of our destruction, the help they have been providing us over time is an extremely strange way of showing it.
Another thought from Laurence Simon, too; turns out the company involved is actively engaged in boycotting Israel (standard arab-nation policy).
http://isfullofcrap.com/old...
If they are planning to extend this policy to our ports, then obviously the deal is a no-go.
Beyond that... the US is more-or-less alone in our ardent support of Israel. We have to choose the fights we will take to the mats. This does not strike me as a particularly worthwhile fight to take up on their behalf.
Should Prime Minister Olmert make a strong appeal for us to reconsider, however, I certainly would.
For me it's about trust. You put forth reasons we should trust Dubai and the government of the UAE. They're not necessarily bad reasons, either.
The problem I have is that when you dig down past the spin, they still have too much in common with nations that I wouldn't trust (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt to name three). And that's where the logic breaks down.
To the extent that actively helping us capture terrorists is "spin" I wouldn't mind a little more of it. If Saudi Arabia et al were even remotely as friendly to our interests as the UAE, we wouldn't have nearly the problems that we do now in the region. That's why we should, as far as I'm concerned, encourage the UAEs of the region and reward it with consideration we would never give the other nations you mentioned.
What the backlash has demonstrated instead is that with many Americans, everything they've done to help us has been in vein. Despite all they've done to differentiate themselves from the states that truly want us destroyed, alienate themselves with other countries in the region, and incur the wrath of al Qaeda, they are still the enemy.
As far as I am concerned, that has done far more damage to our national security than the sale of a port company will.
"Despite all they've done to differentiate themselves from the states that truly want us destroyed, alienate themselves with other countries in the region, and incur the wrath of al Qaeda, they are still the enemy."
I'm slightly playing devil's advocate here, but there are a few things to consider:
1) The deal is more expansive than advertised (first reports were 6 ports affected, I've seen other reports saying that it's operations at as many as 21).
2) There are aspects of security that they WILL control, and these seem to be the underlying question. The issue of "who controls the manifest" comes up quite often, and even if we trust the company themselves, it is still a legitimate question that needs asking.
3) With all sides spinning multiple ways - "We'll hire someone important from America for security", "They won't have anything to do with security" being two of my favorites (contradictory statements from the company and then from the white house, respectively) I'm already not trusting the public statements, which is a bad sign.
4) Dubai shared the rioting over the Danish cartoons. Bad sign.
Some other points to consider.
http://frontpagemag.com/Art...
Take with a grain of salt (it is on FPM) but many of the complaints, including relations with CAIR, are quite valid.
I've read most of the arguments against. In fact, for the first day or two I was adamantly against it. However, the more I investigated the matter the more distorted I found the criticisms to be. To be blunt, the anti-UAE faction has completely lost my trust in presenting even a remotely fair picture of the situation. Whether in an attempt to rationalize a(n understandable) knee-jerk reaction, an attempt to bolster hawkish credentials, or a distrust of the Muslim world that runs so deep that we might as well just go to war with the whole region now, they have overlooked or discounted a central point: we need more countries like the UAE in the Middle East and not less. The instantaneous hysteria that has been whipped up is more likely to deliver the latter.
If I were leading an Islamic nation in the Middle East right now, I would be seriously asking myself why I would do anything for the country that will look for reasons to consider me a terrorist-sympathizer. And I probably wouldn't. There is apparently quite little percentage in helping us out.
Anyway, I've said all I've got to say on the matter. Anyone reading this should have a pretty good idea of their view one way or the other on the matter.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
