During the election cycle of 2004, one of the battle cries from the left was that the Bush administration lacked nuance, that they were too simplistic in their world view, and unable to implement their core principles in the real world, where there is no black or white, good or evil, just a range of people with different agendas. They said we needed a leader with nuance, who could distinguish between friends and enemies, and treat each group accordingly, rather than lump them all together based on something as grotesque as race.
And now we see that the Bush administration is in fact demonstrating just that sort of nuance by allowing an Arab company that purchased the British company that ran 6 of our ports to keep the contract.
But now these towering lights of intellectual freedom and nuance are objecting to the sale and without exception, their arguments boil down to simple racism and religious bigotry. Because the UAE is an Arab nation, and predominantly Muslim, they can't be allowed to run our ports because they might be terrorists.
After all, even if all Muslims aren't terrorists, most terrorists are Muslim, you know.
Well, except for the Irish ones. And the occasional American. Oh yeah, and the Asian ones. And we can't forget the ones from the former Soviet Republics. Oh, and the Africans, gotta include them on the list.
But other than all those folks, all terrorists have been Arabs.
The argument is almost Buchanian in it's xenophobia. (Reality check for a liberal; if you find yourself on the same side of an issue with Pat Buchanon, maybe it's time to take a step back and re-evaluate you're stance.)
Remember how the folks on the left kept complaining that the Bush administration was creating an atmosphere conducive to an anti-Arab backlash that would spill over and harm innocent Arabs? I guess since that prediction fell flat, they're going to try and make it happen on their own.
It's pathetic.
If we have evidence linking either the government of the UAE or the Dubai Ports World company to terrorism in general or al Qaida in particular, then we have good reason for denying them the opportunity to operate the ports. In the absence of such evidence, then they should be allowed to do their job, with the appropriate oversight of course. To do anything else would be to tell the Arab world that the War on Terror is in fact a war on all Arabs.
Yes, I know there are prominent conservatives against the sale as well; they are every bit as ignorant as their counterparts on the left. For example, here's Lindsay Graham (R South Carolina):
It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE who avows to destroy Israel.
That's hardly the same as calling for the destruction of Israel.
But I think the key portion of that quote was "tone deaf politically." That phrase certainly describes why the left is going after this issue so rabidly, even though it shows their commitment to nuance to be so much hogwash. They see an opportunity to weaken the President, and they're taking it. It's pure political opportunism, and nothing more. And most of those on the right, sensing the initial traction the left was getting on the issue, joined in, either out of cowardice, or similar opportunism.
Like I said, pathetic.
Once again, if we have concrete evidence that the UAE government, or DPW is operating with al Qaida or other terrorist groups, then by all means, revoke the contract. However, as long as the only argument is "They're Arabs and can't be trusted," then to block the sale or revoke the contract would be a grotesque mockery of American ideals.
Posted by Rich at February 21, 2006 10:46 PM | TrackBackI haven't been able to determine this, but is the company a part of the government of the UAE, or is it just privately owned by UAE citizens?
Posted by: Barry on February 22, 2006 8:52 AMAs far as I can tell, Barry, it's not part of the government, but it is owned by the government; although to tell you the truth, I'm not sure that a distinction that subtle really means anything or not.
Posted by: rich on February 22, 2006 7:56 PMThe UAE is a giant corporate conglomerate anyway -- if there is a distinction, it's guaranteed to be a fine one.
Posted by: Chris Wage on February 22, 2006 9:11 PM& lets remember, the ports are currently owned by a UK company. The UK (pop:60m or so) has 2m Muslims of which a few a terrorist supporters & a few are suicide bombers. If the UAE takes over P&O, not a lot has changed.
Posted by: Mr Free Market on February 23, 2006 6:54 AMI have to know, since you have quoted Sen. Graham as I have seen elsewhere.. just where I can find an original source for his allusion regarding the UAE and Israel:
"It's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE who avows to destroy Israel."
If this is truly the case, 'w' has no basis for ignoring HAMAS...
Bob, I searched for over an hour, googling through every mention of Israel and the UAE and I couldn't find a single statment that matched Graham's claim. The strongest statement the UAE has made against Israel recently was when they denied carrying on secret negotiations for establishing trade with Israel towards the end of normalizing relations. And even that statement went no further than to say that the UAE would not normalize relations with Israel until there was a Palestinian state.
That's a far cry from vowing to destroy Israel, particularly since we appear to be making progress towards a two state solution, albeit one that the Palestinians themselves don't appear too fond of, based on the way they keep killing one another.
All I can guess is that Graham has indulged in a little exaggeration to make a weak case appear stronger.
Posted by: rich on February 24, 2006 10:40 PMI'm no liberal and, so far, everything about this deal has a bad smell. First off according to the Moussaoui indictment there were several Al Qaeda connections via various UAE financial institutions. Also, the UAE, as far as I understand, diplomatically recognized the Taliban.
As this whole thing progresses it looks worse to me. Now we go from the take over of 6 ports to the reported 21? Also, President Bush sure seems confident in the merits of this deal for not knowing about it before it went down. The fact that he claims to have not known anything about it when it went down yet express absolute confidence in it is just goofy.
After all, even if all Muslims aren't terrorists, most terrorists are Muslim, you know.
That’s not the argument. A more accurate representation would be: We are at war with extremist, Wahabists practitioners of Islam whose ties do run deep in the Arab world and who DO have demonstrable ties with a country who is set to take over the administration of 21 US ports.
I know that it’s very difficult to resist the opportunity for a gotcha! concerning the liberals in regards to exposing their hypocrisy but I think it best to look beyond partisan politics in this regard.
There are so many valid questions that to express doubts and concerns is not an exercise in paranoid xenophobia but, rather, a cautious approach in an environment of a very real war.
Daniel,
1)Al Qaida has also been linked to financial institutions in Great Britain and Canada. Are we forcing them to diest all their US holdings?
2)While the UAE was used to move al Qaida funds before 9/11, not surprising since the UAE was the Switzerland of the MIddle East, they have cooperated fully with US requests to strengthen their banking system and lock out terrorists. Are we going to reward their cooperation, or penalize them out of baseless fears?
3)Please explain how recognizing the Taliban impacts the UAE's ability to oversee port operations in the US? The two facts are unrelated. By your logic, we should also suspend trade with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, two other countries who recognized the Taliban. Incidentally, the UAE was the first of those three to cut ties with the Taliban while they were sheltering Bin Laden.
4)Islamic extremists have links to every MIddle Eastern nation. The question is, do they have the support of or influence over the UAE government. The answer to that question is "No, they do not." That being the case, the deal should go forward.
Again, the argument boils down to one of race.
"They're Arabs and Muslims. Therefore they can't be trusted."
And this isn't just a gotcha for the left. I'm equally dismayed at any conservative who mouths this nonsense. The difference is that conservatives haven't been preaching on and on about inclusiveness and nuance and "creating a backlash." That makes this political grandstanding especially reprehensible for the left.