Village Journals
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Resonate your identity with Naseeb journals. Express your opinions, share your thoughts, post your writings and connect with like minded people through the power of expression.
Dubai Deal for US Ports...
I have to confess that I'm having a great deal of trouble understanding the sturm und drang over DP World taking over subsidiary P& O's contracts to run six major American ports, despite the fact that it seems set to cause the Administration a massive headache.
A little background: DP World is the result of a series of mergers and purchases that included Dubai Ports International, Dubai Ports Authority, British firm P& O and American CSX World Terminals. As a result, DPW has contracts on virtually every continent to run ports, including in such sensitive areas as South Korea.
DPW is primarily owned, via Dubai Holding, by the powerful al-Maktoum family; P& O's other suitor was the Singapore-owned Temasek Holdings. Flush with record petroleum profits and with the UAE standing at the epicenter of the regional economy, DH has aggressively moved to take large stakeholds in companies like Daimler-Chrysler and invest in massive infrastructure upgrades.
The UAE is a conglomerate of several "statelets," of which the Emirate of Dubai is one of the most powerful, and certainly the most cosmopolitan. Dubai's ruler, Shaykh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, is the vice-president of the UAE and a strong force for modernization in the area. In contrast to its neighbors, the UAE in general, and Dubai in particular, practices tolerance as official and semi-official policy and has made economic and social openness a major project. In a sense, the UAE is the mirror image of the Shah of Iran's "White Revolution" -- it successfully invested its petroleum wealth and diversified beyond its borders, but without crushing local civil rights and without fomenting an Islamist opposition.
Of course, from our Western perspective the UAE is far from perfect: it is nondemocratic (though that certainly contributes to its political stability); outside of the emirates of Dubai and Ras Al-Khaimah Shari'a courts have authority to try criminal cases and can impose unconscionable punishments (though they are frequently communted by the government when imposed on non-Muslims); and freedom of speech is basically nonexistent (including Internet proxies that block pornographic and radical Islamist content). However, it can't be denied that the UAE is considerably better than its Gulf neighbors (with the possible exception of Qatar) and Dubai in particular serves as something like the Singapore of the Gulf.
As the financial center of the Middle East and as one of the largest and most open gold markets, Dubai has served as a repository for the funds of many Islamist groups, much as Switzerland served as the bankers for international crime syndicates. But the UAE is no friend to radical Islamists, and has been working to tighten up its financial reporting requirements. Furthermore, Islamists took aim at the UAE after a 2005 offer from Dubai-based EMAAR Properties was floated to purchase the homes of Israeli settlers after the government-mandated pullout. (The EMAAR bid was also attacked by other power centers within the UAE, and appears to reflect a schism between forward-leaning Dubai and more conservative, anti-Israeli emirates.)
So why are Democrats and Republicans attacking Dubai? Political opportunism, to be sure, and a measure of anti-Arab xenophobia as well. Democrats -- even the much-maligned "Kossacks" -- are always seeking to get on the hawkish side of Bush. When this means improving equipment for soldiers and Marines and more realistic strategies for our occupation of Iraq, so much the better. But this is a serious foreign policy blunder. When Rep. Peter King calls the UAE "the heartland of al-Qaida" and the Washington Times says the UAE's government (such as it is) is "favored by al Qaeda," they display a willful and dangerous ignorance that could detrimentally impact US attempts to win hearts and minds across the Muslim world.
A little background: DP World is the result of a series of mergers and purchases that included Dubai Ports International, Dubai Ports Authority, British firm P& O and American CSX World Terminals. As a result, DPW has contracts on virtually every continent to run ports, including in such sensitive areas as South Korea.
DPW is primarily owned, via Dubai Holding, by the powerful al-Maktoum family; P& O's other suitor was the Singapore-owned Temasek Holdings. Flush with record petroleum profits and with the UAE standing at the epicenter of the regional economy, DH has aggressively moved to take large stakeholds in companies like Daimler-Chrysler and invest in massive infrastructure upgrades.
The UAE is a conglomerate of several "statelets," of which the Emirate of Dubai is one of the most powerful, and certainly the most cosmopolitan. Dubai's ruler, Shaykh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, is the vice-president of the UAE and a strong force for modernization in the area. In contrast to its neighbors, the UAE in general, and Dubai in particular, practices tolerance as official and semi-official policy and has made economic and social openness a major project. In a sense, the UAE is the mirror image of the Shah of Iran's "White Revolution" -- it successfully invested its petroleum wealth and diversified beyond its borders, but without crushing local civil rights and without fomenting an Islamist opposition.
Of course, from our Western perspective the UAE is far from perfect: it is nondemocratic (though that certainly contributes to its political stability); outside of the emirates of Dubai and Ras Al-Khaimah Shari'a courts have authority to try criminal cases and can impose unconscionable punishments (though they are frequently communted by the government when imposed on non-Muslims); and freedom of speech is basically nonexistent (including Internet proxies that block pornographic and radical Islamist content). However, it can't be denied that the UAE is considerably better than its Gulf neighbors (with the possible exception of Qatar) and Dubai in particular serves as something like the Singapore of the Gulf.
As the financial center of the Middle East and as one of the largest and most open gold markets, Dubai has served as a repository for the funds of many Islamist groups, much as Switzerland served as the bankers for international crime syndicates. But the UAE is no friend to radical Islamists, and has been working to tighten up its financial reporting requirements. Furthermore, Islamists took aim at the UAE after a 2005 offer from Dubai-based EMAAR Properties was floated to purchase the homes of Israeli settlers after the government-mandated pullout. (The EMAAR bid was also attacked by other power centers within the UAE, and appears to reflect a schism between forward-leaning Dubai and more conservative, anti-Israeli emirates.)
So why are Democrats and Republicans attacking Dubai? Political opportunism, to be sure, and a measure of anti-Arab xenophobia as well. Democrats -- even the much-maligned "Kossacks" -- are always seeking to get on the hawkish side of Bush. When this means improving equipment for soldiers and Marines and more realistic strategies for our occupation of Iraq, so much the better. But this is a serious foreign policy blunder. When Rep. Peter King calls the UAE "the heartland of al-Qaida" and the Washington Times says the UAE's government (such as it is) is "favored by al Qaeda," they display a willful and dangerous ignorance that could detrimentally impact US attempts to win hearts and minds across the Muslim world.
Comments on this journal