Playing The Muslim Card: Dubai Ports World

Last Friday was an unusually depressing day for me, in that supposedly responsible politicians ranging from Senator Schumer to Senator Santorum have decided it appropriate to deal our efforts in the War on Terror a setback – perhaps a serious setback, at that – by insisting publicly that no Arab (and by Arab, what they mean, of course, is Muslim), no matter how ‘moderate’ or pro-U.S., can be trusted.

And as on would expect in cases involving relatively complex issues, the blogosphere – as represented by many of the heavyweights on both sides – has largely provided us with an unthinking, knee-jerk reaction. As opposed to what the blogosphere is supposed to provide of course; informed and thoughtful commentary, that is.

From Ed Morrissey (Captain Ed):

Michelle Malkin points out a disturbing turn of events in the war on terror: the surrender of port management to Arab-based firms.

From Duncan Black (Atrios):

Normally I’m made a little bit uncomfortable by issues which have a crypto-racist tinge to them – they’re Arabs so they’re bad! – but this seems to be a genuine issue. Why the hell would we let a UAE owned company handle domestic port operations?

Indeed.

Why would we surrender our ports to Arabs?

Not that we’re being bigoted or racist in asking, mind you.

This is all about National Security.

You can find similar opinions on sites ranging from Little Green Footballs to Daily KOS. In fact, in reading the comments made by Lizardoids and KOS Kids at the respective appropriate posts, one is struck by how indistinguishable the sentiments towards the Arab/Muslims of the United Arab Emirates are in each opposing camp. While Lizardoids and KOS Kids may disagree on lots of things, but the untrustworthiness of Arab/Muslims doesn’t appear to be one of them.

Lost in all of this is the fact that the government of the United Arab Emirates is exactly the sort of Arab/Muslim government we should be rewarding for their loyalty to us in the War on Terror. The U.A.E. has, in fact, been the very model of the ‘moderate’ Arab/Muslim state we loudly proclaim must take a firm and unbending stand against al-Qaeda and the Middle Eastern Fascists we are fighting.

It is worth noting that Ed Morrissey (and through him, Michelle Malkin) attempt to justify his position on this “issue” by using the 9/11 Commission to claim that a number of the September 11 terrorists spent time in the U.A.E. planning operational details. He further notes that the report states that monies used in the operations passed through banks in the U.A.E., which he deems to be highly significant. What Morrissey and Malkin both fail to note, however, is that none of the Commission Report citations point to either direct or indirect involvement by the government of the United Arab Emirates. The one mention (in passing) of a possible link between U.A.E. government officials and Osama bin Laden comes from Richard Clarke... The same Richard Clarke both Morrissey and Malkin found so completely incompetent and untrustworthy a short time ago.

We should also understand that if the use of U.A.E. territories and banking facilities are a legitimate criterial for excluding their firms from touching U.S. ports, then U.S. firms would, if subjected to those same criteria, fail that acid test... Those same terrorists lived, trained, banked and travelled throughout these United States. In some cases for years. But Ed and Michelle don't mention that, do they?

What Morrissey and Malkin are equally careful to avoid is any discussion of the U.A.E.’s role in the War on Terror. To do so would put their "concerns" in a much less flattering light... A light far closer to simple racial and religious animus than to national security. That’s because when one actually takes the time to review the actions and policies of the United Arab Emirates dispassionately, what one finds is an Arab/Muslim state quietly providing meaningful, material support to the United States and the Coalition in the War on Terror. In other words, they are doing exactly what we have stated we expect from them.

Beyond that, it must be mentioned that none of the critics of the Administration have a working knowledge of the issue: Senator Schumer didn’t even realize that the present operator of the Port of New York was a foreign company – London based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company! Here was his statement from last week:

America’s busiest ports are vital to our economy and to the international economy, and that is why they remain top terrorist targets. Just as we would not outsource military operations or law enforcement duties, we should be very careful before we outsource such sensitive homeland security duties.

Evidently England is now the 51st state of our grand nation. Who knew?

Worthy of mockery? Yes. But it is quite illustrative of the level on which just about everyone has been dealing with this issue.

For example, one of the details notably absent from the debate of this "issue" so far is a detailed description of the port security arrangements presently in place. I am unaware of anyone, either politician, journalist or blogger, who has provided even a rudimentary examination (much less evaluation) of Peninsular and Oriental’s security apparatus. For those of us with a modicum of knowledge of the business world, it would seem entirely reasonable to assume that Peninsular and Oriental could be subcontracting a substantial portion of port security for the U.S. ports they manage to a variety of U.S. based security firms – both public and private. In this is the case, then the idea that Dubai Port World could noticeably weaken port security without it coming to the attention of the appropriate authorities seems to be somewhat problematic.

In any event, just how does one draw the conclusion that the argument that port security a change in ownership at Peninsular and Oriental from English (read White and Christian) to Dubai Ports World (read Non-White and Muslim) would automatically lead to U.S. ports being overrun by swarthy, gun-toting Arab/Muslim terrorists? Dubai Ports World has already announced the Peninsular and Oriental’s headquarters location (London), management (English) and operations will remain intact. Beyond that, all of Dubai World Ports have received the same independent security certification – International Ship and Port Facility Security – as has Peninsular and Oriental ports.

Finally, the obvious needs to be asked: Given that The Bush Administration has already subjected the security concerns to an inter-agency review that nobody from Senator Clinton to Charles Johnson has actually seen – much less review and evaluate – is the contention of “Conservatives” from Santorum to Morrissey, Malkin and Johnson that their beloved Bush Administration is indifferent to the security of the nation? Or is just that George W. Bush is incompetent? Perhaps, just perhaps, it is simply that they cannot abide the idea that when President Bush says we must distinguish between those who use Islam to justify their very un-Islamic fascism and those who honor Islam by living their lives peacefully, he really means it.

And what exactly are the motives of either pro-war or anti-war Democrats in this? Other than the chance to further an agenda of regaining domestic political power, that is? If Democrats and Progressives despised George W. Bush for a racist war in Iraq, just what moral exemption do they draw upon to claim that no Arab can be trusted without ending up becoming largely indistinguishable from the likes of the Evil One himself?

Had anyone involved in this fiasco paused to reflect on their actions, they might have noted the following: Where this "issue" will hurt us is not with the uneducated masses rioting at the instigation of Middle East fascists and their allies, it will hurt us with precisely the portion of the Arab/Muslim population that is most sympathetic to our goals in that part of the world: The educated middle class. This would be the businessmen who manage and work for companies like Dubai Ports World. We are telling those men, in no uncertain terms, that is doesn’t matter what they do, what matters is what they are. For all our posturing about the hypocrisy of Arab/Muslim Moderates failing to stand up to Middle East fascists, the bottom line is that even when these Arab/Muslim Moderates do what we ask – as has the government and the people of the United Arab Emirates – what we reward those efforts with is little more than distrust and contempt. The Dubai Ports World "issue" is a perfect example of such a reward. And that, in the end, will most likely end up costing us more lives.

Update: A reader pointed me to an excellent post on DPW here.

Note: I see that more than one KOS Kid over at Daily KOS railing on the fact that the Bush Administration has 'sold us out' to Bush's Arab/Big Oil friends. I understand some KOS Kids tend to think of the VRWC as, well, vast, but do they really think it so vast that it has control of the publicly traded English company involved? And while I'm pretty sure the U.A.E is on the VRWC wish list, I don't think we've been able to buy it.... at least not yet. My advice to those that see Bush prefidy in all matters? Remove your tinfoil hat, disable the propellor and consider this: Publicly traded British company. U.A.E. owned private company. U.S. President... Now think.

I suppose such raving could be considered funny if it was a bit less pathetic.

Comments

[baba durag]

I think I don't want ANY foreign company managing US ports. Seems like a bad idea just on the surface. Why entertain it then.

[DennisThePeasant]

How about the fact that foreign companies already manage US ports. And have for years.

Where was everyone's concern two years ago? Or two weeks ago, for that matter?

[Cameron]

If it were funny, this terrible pressing concern for who owns the company operating the port facilities would be a joke. Isn't the biggest security problem we're facing at ports the fact that huge numbers of cargo containers come through without any sort of inspection? I haven't seen where U.S. or European port operators - or the Department of Homeland Security, for that matter - have done exactly a bang-up job in addressing this. Lots of great opportunities for political posturing all the way around, though.

[baba durag]

We weren't aware that US ports are under foreign mangement. Another strike against the outsourcing gold diggers. Thanks for letting us know.

[DennisThePeasant]

If you didn't know, then perhaps port security wasn't that big a deal in the first place.

[Vlad]

"Where was everyone's concern two years ago? Or two weeks ago, for that matter?"

John Kerry made improved port security a large plank in his campaign. It was one of the first things he'd bring up in the debates, when asked what he'd do differently in the GWOT.

it hasn't gone anywhere since then, true, but there's a limit to what the minority party can do in terms of setting policy.

[Steve Ely]

Dennis, have you seen this analysis? It's got some details and links to more. It looks like something you'd appreciate.

[DennisThePeasant]

Steve-

Excellent link. Thanks.

[neil]

And what exactly are the motives of either pro-war or anti-war Democrats in this? Other than the chance to further an agenda of regaining domestic political power, that is?

Not much, unless the unions dislike the company for some reason, or the Democrats are trying to build support for nationalizing port security.

[wisdomweasel]

"a number of the September 11 terrorists spent time in the U.A.E. planning operational details."

That I love. This of course would be the 9/11 group whose core are also refered to occasionally as "the Hamburg Cell". Quick! Everyone divest themselves of BASF stock and pull the Bosch sparkplugs out of your BMWs! And didn't they also do a fair amount of operational planning in Florida? Quick! Put down that grapefruit!

Thanks for an excellent, well-considered post Dennis. You were "complaining" a couple of days ago about a drop off in traffic (and you also seem to be gaining lefty supporters like myself). Its probably because you come across as far too sensible for the blogosphere. Do you think it is too late for the Prez to declare a "war on hysteria" to accompany the "war on terror"? I mean, if we are in the business of combating nouns we might as well fight on two fronts...

[collounsbury]

An excellent article, my colleagues and I at 'Aqoul have began working on this issue. Absolutely spot on with respect to the issue of xenophobia on Arab foreigners.

As to the outsourcing issue brought up in comments are irrel - this is merely an issue of capital ownership, no outsourcing is going on.

[Cameron]

God, this is depressing....it's the Danish cartoons in reverse. I just finished listening to a piece on THE GREAT ARABAMOSLEM PORT TERROR SCANDAL on our local all-news radio station. First Senator Boxer took a whack for the Dems; not to be outdone, Rep. Peter King stepped up to the plate for the Repubs; and finally a "local counter-terrorism expert" (who sounded suspiciously like he had just been surgically extracted from Daniel Pipes' anus)capped the inning with some startlingly ill-informed comments.

All in all, a chance for the whole world to see the virtues that have kept America proud and strong: hysterical cowardice, blind political opportunism (and by both of the major parties we're stuck with!), and a drooling ignorance that is almost impossible to get a handle on. Ick. I'm going to bed.

[mch]

Well said, and supported.

Actually, I kind of agree on port security being domestic; but if it isn't, as long as it's a competent firm which hires the right people here, I don't care if their incorporation is Saudi, Burmese, Chinese, or Cuban.

Still domestic ownership, or guaranteed domestic operation is better.

[Patrick Tyson]

Again...

Port industry ownership is increasingly moving out of European and American hands, as state-controlled entities like DP and PSA pay up to buy publicly traded competitors. In the future, these giants are only going to get larger, analysts predict.

"It's an all-or-nothing business," said Neil Davidson, a container ports analyst at Drewry Shipping Consultants. "You have to go after it in a big way or not at all."

DP World, which was started in 1999, will become one of the world's top three port companies after the deal closes. DP World would handle about 33 million containers, just over 9 percent of the world's total.

Port companies like PSA, which is backed by the Singapore government, and Hutchinson Whampoa, which is part of a giant conglomerate, can use their parents' or backers' deep pockets to pursue deals their publicly traded rivals cannot, Davidson said. "They can take a strategic view, rather than thinking about shareholder value."

This is the second time that DP World has beaten PSA to a deal. In December 2004, the Dubai company purchased the port business of the American rail company CSX for just over $1 billion.

Despite their rapid growth, there is presently little fear that the industry's leading players could squeeze the shipping industry or manufacturers. The port industry is still relatively diversified, with the top 10 port companies controlling about 50 percent of the total capacity. Some big port companies are owned by shipping lines, and small independent port company start-ups are common.

Dubai has been eager to diversify from oil revenue as its reserves of crude draw down, and it has been pouring money into projects like real estate development and trying to establish an international stock market and banking center.

By Heather Timmons, The New York Times (this is from the 2/11/06 International Herald Tribune version)

Howard Beale came to mind.

[horatio parker]

---After the Taliban takes control of the area around Kandahar, Afghanistan, in September 1994, prominent Persian Gulf state officials and businessmen, including high-ranking United Arab Emirates and Saudi government ministers, such as Saudi intelligence minister Prince Turki al-Faisal, frequently secretly fly into Kandahar on state and private jets for hunting expeditions. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01] General Wayne Downing, Bush's former national director for combating terrorism, says: “They would go out and see Osama, spend some time with him, talk with him, you know, live out in the tents, eat the simple food, engage in falconing, some other pursuits, ride horses. One noted visitor is Sheik Mohammed ibn Rashid al Maktum, United Arab Emirates Defense Minister and Crown Prince for the emirate of Dubai.” [MSNBC, 9/5/03] While there, some develop ties to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and give them money. Both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar sometimes participate in these hunting trips. Former US and Afghan officials suspect that the dignitaries' outbound jets may also have smuggled out al-Qaeda and Taliban personnel. [Los Angeles Times, 11/18/01] On one occasion, the US will decide not to attack bin Laden with a missile because he's falconing with important members of the United Arab Emirates' royal family (see February 1999). ----

[horatio parker]

Sorry, I put the URL for that post in brackets, and it didn't appear:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-531

[Richard Silverstein]

I'm one of those KOS kids but I agree w. you wholeheartedly on this issue. Perhaps we should temper our generalizations a bit? What's more, I'm Jewish and I find the entire rationale behind this to be raicst through & through.

I found Malkin's post on this to be full-throated ethnic paranoia (which she's so good at).

Glad you added the DPW link as it provides the most comprehensive explanation of the business, economic & political issues that I've seen.

I too have written a post on this issue (linked to this comment).

[DennisThePeasant]

Perhaps we should temper our generalizations a bit?

And here I was half-amazed that I got through a 800 word essay without calling anyone an 'asshole'...

[Richard Silverstein]

One other thing you omitted fr. yr discussion of the motivations of the politicians involved--Schmuer, Clinton & Menendez have large Jewish constituencies and have found that you can't go wrong by pandering to the imagined prejudices of your constituents.

I want to be careful here since I'm Jewish. I'm blaming the politicians, not the Jewish voters. Pols hear fr. AIPAC about what Jews supposedly think & believe & they march in lockstep. I don't believe that most Jews are frightened of a UAE company running NY/NJ ports. But I believe that AIPAC & various Jewish "leaders" (prob. also right-wing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) are sorely vexed by this.

That's why it's important for their Jewish (& non-Jewish) constituents to tell them they're way off base on this issue.

[dsquared]

How do you outsource a port?

Oh hang on, I see. The idea is that British dockworkers are too expensive and prone to go on strike, so Dubai Port World will up sticks and shift Liverpool docks to Bangalore. This will obviously be a bit inconvenient as a) Bangalore is quite a way from the sea and b) it will be a bit of a schlep to get the stuff back to Liverpool where it presumably needs to be once it's been unloaded, but those Indians, they're so cheap!!!

They're insane. A port is the very definition of a business that cannot but be under domestic control, whoever owns it. If anything, the Dubaians(?) ought to be worried about shelling out such a pile of cash for an asset which is subject to the regulation of such a bunch of volatile, unpredictable bigots, but I suppose they're prepared to live with the risk.

There is one point and one point only that is worth making against this deal from a left perspective; that growing multinational oligopoly in the ports sector will be a problem if we continue to try to pretend that the WTO agreements make it illegal for domestic governments to regulate the charges levied on domestic ports. But that's a reason for being suspicious of any and all port mergers (or more pertinently, for being suspicious of this particular abuse of the WTO) rather than kicking up a fuss about Dubai per se.

[FabioC.]

Can anyone explain exactly what the company owning a port does?

And who is in charge of the security and inspections in ports?

I think these are determinant questions.

However, I wish to point out that, save some major technolical advancement (ie some kind of scanner that can quickly produce high-resultion imagery of the interior of a container without opening it), it is not feasible to inspect all incoming containers. The scale of the problem is simply too big.

[jade]

All that is happening here is that Clinton hears about the deal and thinks, 'Ah, here is a nice easy way to get a positive write-up on NewsMax, thus proving that I'm a centrist'. The righties think 'Arab dockworkers!', the lefties think 'UAE = corrupt sheiks who are friends with Bush!' At that point the hack journalists blunder into the fray and as usual fail to elucidate anything.

[libby]

I hear everyone in support of this deal saying the UAE is our friend and has been ever so helpful in the WOT but I for one am apparently woefully uninformed. I wonder if someone could tell me what specifically they've done to aid our anti-terrorist efforts?

[Scott Ferguson]

Gee, KK, a Pajamas Media blog linked to you. [shudder]

[Atrios]

To me the issue isn't that it's a foreign company or an Arab company, but a foreign state owned company. State owned companies have different interests and pressure, potentially, than do private companies.

It's similar to objecting to having so much US debt being bought by "the Chinese." The issue isn't that Chinese people are buying hundreds of billions of t-bills, it's that the Chinese government is, and the Chinese government isn't a player motivated purely by economic incentives.

I don't want the French government having significant involvement in our port security either.