Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Pages

• Home
• Photo Gallery
• Advertising
• Comment Rules
• Subscribe to Posts (per post)
• Tikun Olam Store
• Donate
• Subscribe (daily digest)
• Contact
• About
• Monthly archives
• Terms of Use

4 Responses to “U.S. Corporations to Lobby Congress for Dubai Ports Deal”

1. Andrew Schamess says:

   March 9, 2006 at 9:40 AM

   I agree with you that a lot of the criticism of this deal is just partisanship and electoral politicking (with, regretably, a heavy dose of knee-jerk anti-Arabism) But, political posturing aside, is there really nothing to the concerns about the links between Dubai’s ruling family and Osama bin Laden?

   It seems to me we made that mistake with Saudi Arabia, taking the weath and relative westernization of some segments of the society as insurance that the country would be a good, stable partner in the Mideast. Yet, clearly, a good deal of the elite and the ruling families were actively helping to grow Al Quaeda at the same time we were making trade deals and selling arms to the Saudis.

   From what I understand, Dubai’s royal family owns the company that would be involved in the port deal. You’ve studied this pretty well, I think… are you sure there’s no potential for, say, back-channel communication of port security details from “fringe” elements in the royal family to groups planning a terrorist attack?

   Reply
2. Richard Silverstein says:

   March 9, 2006 at 3:47 PM

   As far as Osama is concerned, you have to talk pre-9/11 & post 9/11. Pre-9/11 I have no doubt that some members (note I said “some,” certainly not all & certainly not even a majority) may’ve had sympathies w. Al Qaeda. Pre-9/11, UAE banking policies may’ve permitted hijackers fr. using the banks to transmit funds. But that all changed dramatically & abruptly after 9/11 (just as it did for us here). One fellow in the royal line of succession was removed because he was deemed too sympathetic to Osama.

   As for security, there’s absolutely no way that DPW could be infiltrated in such a way as to endanger port security. DPW will not handle port security. Our government agencies will do that (or they’re supposed to be doing that–how good they are at it is another story). Basically, port managers move cargo (& that’s done largely by huge pieces of equipment & not by masses of stevedores as in the old days) & do paperwork.

   Also, UAE is the first Arab nation to agree to allow us to inspect all U.S. bound cargo at UAE ports BEFORE it even gets to sea (considered a more thorough means of guarding against tampering).

   Reply
3. Richard Silverstein says:

   March 9, 2006 at 3:48 PM

   As far as Osama is concerned, you have to talk pre-9/11 & post 9/11. Pre-9/11 I have no doubt that some members (note I said “some,” certainly not all & certainly not even a majority) may’ve had sympathies w. Al Qaeda. Pre-9/11, UAE banking policies may’ve permitted hijackers to use its banks to transmit funds. But that all changed dramatically & abruptly after 9/11 (just as it did for us here). One fellow in the royal line of succession was removed because he was deemed too sympathetic to Osama.

   As for security, there’s absolutely no way that DPW could be infiltrated in such a way as to endanger port security. DPW will not handle port security. Our government agencies will do that (or they’re supposed to be doing that–how good they are at it is another story). Basically, port managers move cargo (& that’s done largely by huge pieces of equipment & not by masses of stevedores as in the old days) & do paperwork.

   Also, UAE is the first Arab nation to agree to allow us to inspect all U.S. bound cargo at UAE ports BEFORE it even gets to sea (considered a more thorough means of guarding against tampering).

   Reply
4. Andrew Schamess says:

   March 9, 2006 at 4:31 PM

   Thanks, Richard. If that’s the case then, much as I delight in any political travail for President Bush, it does seem like a pointless issue to attack him on, and with more than a hint of anti-Arab racism. Let’s hope the Democratic party doesn’t fall prey to this on any broader scale.

   Reply