Dubai Ports World in the news again

One if by land, two if by sea. Dubai Ports World tries an inland invasion of the US this time. Hotel Washington - next to White House.

Story over at Emirates Economist.

Jewish Diamonds Find Favor in Dubai :: Washington Post

Quote:

"Dubai is quickly growing to become a very important center for diamonds," Ernest Blom, president of the World Federation of Diamond Bourses, said by phone from Jerusalem.

The good Arab-Jewish vibes extend across the Atlantic. In June, the largely Jewish New York Diamond Dealers Club on Manhattan's 47th Street feted Ahmed bin Sulayem, deputy chairman of the Dubai Diamond Exchange, for his contribution to the industry.
. . .
As Israelis and Arabs emerge from the war in Lebanon, a booming diamond exchange in this Arab country 1,300 miles away is hard proof that some Arab-Israeli ties have survived despite the region's tensions.

The two-year-old Dubai Diamond Exchange has put the Gulf emirate squarely inside a global business dominated by Jewish traders. And that, inevitably, means trade ties with Israel, another world diamond hub.
. . .
Israeli Diamond Exchange president Avi Paz says diamonds and hospitality flow freely between Israel and Dubai.

"We came there, they came here. There is no problem at all," Paz said in Tel Aviv. "I wish that wherever I go, they'll host me like they hosted me in Dubai."

Officially at least, the Emirates still enforces some aspects of the Arab League's boycott with Israel, although a government official said most restrictions were dropped long ago. There are no direct flights to Israel and visitors traveling on Israeli passports are rarely allowed to enter.
. . .
The 34-day summer war in Lebanon, between Hezbollah and Israel, dulled sales in Dubai's diamond markets but only temporarily, industry officials say.

"People don't mix conflict with business. The war will not affect the diamond trade in any lasting way," said Abboud.

The relationship was highlighted in March, when controversy arose over Dubai Ports World assuming the management of U.S. ports. At the time the chairman of Israel's merchant fleet told U.S. senators that his ships called often at DP World-owned ports in Dubai and worldwide, and faced no problems.

Full article here.

Hey beware of being "Dubai'd"

While surfing the net I came across this news item on an American Lebanese who had his nationality denounced due to bad rumers. The author said that the poor soul had been Dubai'd. Well looking more into the term through the eyes of google I found this defination:

Dubai'd! Following the recent Dubai Ports debacle, it looks like the media have come up with a new phrase - "To be Dubai'd". "Dubai'd--that's when you are demonized by unfounded allegations spread by opponents seeking political advantage and then dumped by so-called friends who fear defending you. It is a kind of political terrorism that mixes fear, character assassination, and crass politics."

So I wonder how the media drew similarities between the name of Dubai and the social and moral evils mentioned above...

9/11 anniversary, the "war on terror," and the uselesssness of facts

So, today marks the five-year anniversary of the World Trade center attacks in NYC. I woke up this morning, as most Americans, I am guessing, to news coverage of solemn remembrance ceremonies, narratives of friends and families of people lost on 9/11, and footage of the planes flying into the buildings.
Surprisingly, or not so surprisingly, Cheney was on the news yesterday admitting that there is no proven connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, nor are there any weapons of mass destruction, nor is there any connection between Saddam and Al-Qaida. Yet we are doing a "pretty good job" in Iraq!
Therefore, the "war on terror" is still justified, as is our presence in Iraq, according to the government, pundits, and a lot of Americans. Along with the justification for increased fear-mongering about the lack of security at our airports, borders, ports, etc. And meanwhile, nothing has happened on American soil in the 5 years that we have supposedly been at war. Nothing, that is, except for Arab and South-Asian looking men being detained for no reason, civil liberties being eroded, people being pulled off of planes for speaking Arabic, and a slew of other "suspicious" activity.
So, every reason for being in Iraq is refuted, there is no terrorism to speak of against America, and here we are, hundreds of thousands of civilians later, with two toppled governments overseas, and the possibility of expansion into other Middle Eastern countries based on a supposed war that is being fought.
Why? The sentimental pull of 9/11, its fortification of a particular kind of American identity (non-brown), and the branding of Arabs, Islam, and Arabic as perpetually suspect allow for American military action overseas to be justified, no matter what the facts of the matter are. This is blatant racism, yet it is hardly ever called such, except for in isolated incidents. So, pulling someone off a plane might be racist, but since there is a "real" threat from Islamicists, screening Muslim men is a legitimate consideration. But tell me what is the "real" in the threat, please, because I have yet to see it, and things have gotten so blurry that it seems as long as there is a Middle East, and as long as there is Islam, Americans will think there is a threat. What is this besides racism? If you paint with a broad enough brush, everyone is a potential terrorist, and we are in a renewed stage of American expansionism, or if we are calling things by their true names, imperialism.

Thank you, Dubai Ports :: Publius Pundit

Quote:

Dubai Ports has gotten a new contract to develop Puerto Callao, in Peru, creating a vibrant container terminal where none existed, so that Peru can export its natural gas reserves and anything else would like to export, and get rich doing it. After all, they’ve got a free trade pact with the U.S., they might as well use it!

This port is extremely critical for Peru’s development and will serve as a beachhead from which Peru can challenge the energy export supremacy of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and his little Bolivian minime, Evo Morales. From this new port, tons of new energy will flow to the U.S.’s, Mexico’s and Asia’s markets, adding to world supply, driving down the prices, and in the end doing its part to put these dictators out of business.

Thank you, Dubai Ports International.

Dubai's Islamic Disneyworld

Link at Common Dreams News Center - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community: Dubai's Islamic Disneyworld.

The article is dated March 3, 2006 but it is new to me. Perhaps it is also new to you. A tidbit:

Super-sized Dubai-style poor taste may, in fact, be the biggest threat to U.S. ports. Would Dubai Ports World go beyond dinosaurs and develop a theme park in which tourists fend off lifelike terrorists?

Honesty compels me to admit that from a national security perspective, Dubai Ports World's motto — "The force that's breaking the industry mold" — is not particularly reassuring.

But leave that aside. Here's the real question: Is Dubai Ports World truly up to the challenge of turning ramshackle American ports into luxury theme parks?

My initial investigation was discouraging. The company's international website tends toward the pedantic, offering tedious detail concerning quay lengths, intermodal container traffic and gross crane moves per hour, but few hints of luxurious excess.

The company's United Arab Emirates website (www.dpworld.ae) offers more hope, however. The home page features "Captain Hamad," a winking cartoon lad in a sailor suit who beckons visitors to the "Kids Zone" for "an unusual tour" and "fun in the game zone." Need I say that winking sailor boys — with the words "unusual" and "fun" in close proximity — are all promising signs of Neverland-style theme parks to come?

If all this reads like the author's day job isn't breezy journalism, you are right. She's an academic.

It's also safe to infer that the Progressive Community in the U.S. isn't not a friend to Dubai. Rather, Dubya is Dubai's real friend in Washington.

VOTE.COM | Column | HILL'S '08 HEADACHE

VOTE.COM Column HILL'S '08 HEADACHE

Dick Morris suggests that if Hillary Clinton (as in Hill') runs for President in 2008, her husbands affiliation with Yucaipa investment fund could be the next Whitewater/cattle futures scandal the Clintons will deliver.

And then there's the Dubai connection:

When Bill joined Yucaipa, the announcement said only that the former president would be working on two other funds - Yucaipa's American Fund and its Corporate Initiative Fund. But the Times reports, "Clinton is also a partner in a Yucaipa fund that invests in overseas ventures, for which he receives regular payments and would draw one-third of the profits when the fund is dissolved at least five years from now."

And Yucaipa last year joined with the Dubai Investment Group to create a new U.S. company: DIGL Inc., which invests the private funds of Dubai's crown prince, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoun, the fifth-richest man in the world according to Forbes. Even if Bill's not directly working with that Yucaipa account, he and Hillary can expect to make millions via a company that works with the sheik.

(Of course, Dubai's known past generosity to Bill and institutions he controls, such as his presidential library, totals a very solid six figures. During the recent ports-deal flap, that relationship had former President Clinton advising and publicly defending Dubai - even as Sen. Clinton was denouncing it.)

Is Bill Clinton getting regular payments from a fund that invests the prince's money? Again, the Clintons should tell us.

If a foreign head of state is even indirectly paying the spouse of a U.S. senator and presidential candidate, the need for disclosure becomes obvious. (The same principle also holds for Bill's other hat - an ex-president posing as a disinterested commentator on America's Middle East relationships.)

Learn these facts well. The tycoon, the ex-president and the sheik are likely to be recurring topics as a Hillary presidential candidacy looms.

Political junkies will have fun with this one.

AD, no freehold for foreigners | Real Estate

AD, no freehold for foreigners :: AMEInfo fn
Ex ports, Ex pats?

If a similar law had existed in the US then we could have avoided all this messy ports business to begin with. But it doesn't. Foreigners can own land in the US.

So the US gets egg on its face when its legislators insist that there be exceptions - that certain land cannot be owned by certain foreigners. At least Abu Dhabi is treating all foreigners equally.

Bill and Hillary Clinton were not available for comment.

Posts that contain UAE per day for the last 30 days.

Get your own chart!

TAGS: UAE, ports, freehold

RAK enters NCAA Final Four: Washington Post

Link - GMU-RAK is the cinderella team out of the Mideast Regional of the NCAA basketball tournament (also known as March Madness).

Sports, not ports.

60 Minutes' Rooney on Dubai deal

I usually enjoy watching CBS' 60 Minutes and Andy Rooney at the end is often amusing in his old-man-curmudgeonly way. However, when I watched him take on the Dubai port deal I was less than amused. Read it people! He's often not the best-informed person on America TV but this is just scary. Here are some highlights:

- Dubai is capital of country called United Arab Emirates. Don't ask me what an "Emirates" is and don't ask me to put my finger on Dubai on a map of the world, either.

- A lot of Americans are involved, considering that Dubai Ports World is supposed to be a foreign company. The head of it has been an American - a Yale graduate named Ted Bilkey. Several of his assistants are American. For all we know this is a business deal put together by Americans to make money by using Dubai as a front.

- The credit card companies are using people in India to do their customer service business. If you call them with a problem, you get someone who speaks English, sort of, but she's sitting in New Delhi.

- Why don't they outsource The White House, or outsource Congress. Get some really smart people from other countries to run our country for us. A congressman gets $162,000 a year and all he can eat. I'll bet we could get some natives of Dubai to do the same work twice as well for half the price.

- I hope CBS doesn't decide to outsource 60 Minutes. They'd probably replace me with someone from Dubai, Anwar Rooney, who'd do what I do for a quarter of what they pay me.

They love her

Advised by nzm to crosspost since the article is excellent

Sheikha Lubna is proving to be a big hit stateside, and for good reason:

"Sheikha Lubna is the perfect weapon to counter the negativism generated by the Dubai Ports fiasco for several reasons. She is intelligent, sharp and charming -- proof that not all the people from Dubai are in cahoots with Osama bin Laden, as some people here would like us to believe. Her command of the English language is impeccable, and she could easily pass for an American."

I have long been a fan. It was a smart move to send her to pacify the situation. Read about Dubai's Secret Weapon here.

Senior US politician compares Dubaians to Skinheads

Who said it?

“Let’s say skinheads had bought a company to take over our port,” he said. “I think the outcry would have been the same.”

Your choices (select the single best answer):

a. Chuck Schumer, Democrat, Senior Senator of the great state of New York

b. Joseph Lieberman, Democrat, Senior Senator of the great state of Connecticut

c. George W. Bush, Republican, POTUS

d. None of the above


Hint 1: Viking Pundit files this under "It's only racism if Republicans do it."
Hint 2: You don't hear any worldwide hue and cry over this statement.
Hint 3: It's not the first Jew to make a serious run at the Democratic nomination for President. His position on the Dubai ports deal is brilliantly presented here.

For the answer, click here.

Dubai and Good Luck: A ports retrospect

In retrospect, America went collectively insane over the possibility a company owned by Dubai's government would operate several of our ports.

Read the whole article from the Washington Times

[my blog is back up, btw]

Dubai and Dunces

March 15, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist

Dubai and Dunces - New York Times
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

When it came to the Dubai ports issue, the facts never really had a chance — not in this political season. Still, it's hard to imagine a more ignorant, bogus, xenophobic, reckless debate than the one indulged in by both Republicans and Democrats around this question of whether an Arab-owned company might oversee loading and unloading services in some U.S. ports. If you had any doubts before, have none now: 9/11 has made us stupid. We don't need any more pre-9/11 commissions. We need a post-9/11 commission, one that looks at all the big and little things we are doing — from sanctioning torture to warrantless wiretaps to turning our embassies abroad into fortresses — that over time could eat away at the core DNA of America. What is so crazy about the Dubai ports issue is that Dubai is precisely the sort of decent, modernizing model we should be trying to nurture in the Arab-Muslim world. But we've never really had an honest discussion about either the real problems out there or the real solutions, have we?

The real problem was recently spelled out by an Arab-American psychiatrist, Dr. Wafa Sultan, in a stunning interview with Al Jazeera. Speaking about the Arab-Muslim world, Dr. Sultan said: "The clash we are witnessing ... is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on the other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings."

The Jazeera host then asked:

"I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?"

Dr. Sultan: "Yes, that is what I mean."

Dr. Sultan voiced truths that many Muslims know: their civilization is, in many places, in turmoil, falling further and further behind the world in science, education, industry and innovation, while falling deeper and deeper into the grip of crackpot clerics, tin-pot dictators, violent mobs and madmen like bin Laden and Saddam.

President Bush keeps talking about Iraq and the Arab world as if democracy alone is the cure and all we need to do is get rid of a few bad apples. The problem is much deeper — we're dealing with a civilization that is still highly tribalized and is struggling with modernity. Mr. Bush was right in thinking it is important to help Iraq become a model where Arab Muslims could freely discuss their real problems, the ones identified by Dr. Sultan, and chart new courses. His crime was thinking it would be easy.

I don't know how Iraq will end, but I sure know that we aren't going to repeat the Iraq invasion elsewhere anytime soon. Yet the need for reform in this region still cries out. Is there another way? Yes — nurturing internally generated Arab models for evolutionary reform, and one of the best is Dubai, the Arab Singapore.
Dubai is not a democracy, and it is not without warts. But it is a bridge of decency that leads away from the failing civilization described by Dr. Sultan to a much more optimistic, open and self-confident society. Dubaians are building a future based on butter not guns, private property not caprice, services more than oil, and globally competitive companies, not terror networks. Dubai is about nurturing Arab dignity through success not suicide. As a result, its people want to embrace the future, not blow it up.

What's ironic is that if Democrats who hate the Bush war in Iraq actually had a peaceful alternative policy for promoting transformation in the Arab-Muslim world, it would be called "the Dubai policy": supporting internally driven Arab engines of change. That's why Arab progressives are stunned by our behavior. As an Arab businessman friend said to me of the Dubai saga: "This deal has left a real bad taste in many mouths. I mean this was Dubai, for God's sake!

You could not have a better friend and more of a symbol of globalization and openness. If they are a security danger to the U.S., then who is not?" So whatever happens with the Iraq experiment — but especially if it fails — we need Dubai to succeed.

Dubai is where we should want the Arab world to go. Unfortunately, we just told Dubai to go to hell.

Why So Many Americans Take an Anti-DP World Position

(Sorry, more DP World commentary, --AARGH!-- but I hope to offer something new.)

It's obvious why politicians in the US have jumped on the anti-DP World bandwagon, but why has the average American done so, with polls showing up to 3/4 believing all that crazy rhetoric? As an American I hope I can shed some light on this. To start with, however, I should declare my own bias. I am of the view that there is no rationale whatsoever to oppose the original decision by US authorities to approve the DP World takeover of P & O operations in the U.S. I won't attempt to argue this point, except to urge anyone who would differ to read more about and research the issue at any respectable news site.

So, I'm coming from a position that holds there was no justifiable reason for American opposition to that deal. What I aim to do beyond that is offer a plausible explanation for the American position.

I proceed by way of an analogy and an anecdote:

A few years ago there was a bit of a fuss about the prospect of a Chinese entity taking over some operations in a California port. It seemed a sensitive issue considering the port in question was home to one of the US military's main Pacific fleets. I remember thinking it would be insane (from an American perspective) for such a deal to go through. Why? Well, at that time China seemed to be emerging more and more as a potentially unfriendly rival to the US in a variety of spheres. It seemed simple logic not to handover control of such a sensitive facility to a potential enemy.

Ask me today what eventually happened with that deal and I must sheepishly confess, I have no idea! It never reached the level of hysterics that the DP World matter has--it probably wasn't an election year. But more importantly I never took the time to really look at the issue. I just heeded a gut-reaction.

"So, what was that all about?" I ask myself today. Why did I so easily jump to conclusions? Was it racism? Did or do I dislike Chinese? I would not like to think that was a factor--certainly not a critical one. I had no particular interest in China but at the same time I had nothing against the Chinese in any racial sense.

Was I being overly patriotic and defensive? Well, yes, I would say that was part of it. I was uncomfortable with the fact that China seemed to be challenging America on so many fronts.

Was there a level of ignorance on my part? Absolutely. I never really dug into to the story to find out the ins and outs. I more or less just followed the headlines.

Was I indifferent to what might have been any Chinese perspective? Totally, and this I think was the heart of the matter. It never even occurred to me that I might want to look at it from a Chinese perspective. Were they not entitled to persue profitable business opportunities just as any American company was? Could they even have had something to offer the US by whatever acumen they had in the field? I never thought for a moment to consider such things.

Fast-forward to the present and DP World. I live in the UAE. I see things from a UAE perspective as much as, if not more than, an American perspective. But back in America, it is the rare individual who would see or even consider the perspective that we, being here, take for granted.

This, I think, explains part of this wierd phenomenon of Americans feeling so threatened when there are no objective facts to support such a position. It is not only ignorance--a little reading up on the issue would clear that up--but a mindset that makes it almost impossible to view things from the other side. This explains the problem to a degree, but certainly doesn't justify it. If we in the UAE can avoid being defensive in return, then we might find a few ways to get the average American to be less egocentric. The calls for Oprah to come and do a show here are certainly a step in that direction.

And if you're not sick of reading about this topic--actually its a great issue, but who has time to keep up with it?--then see also Don't bash America... promote Dubai.

TAGS: ports, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Technorati Chart: Dubai ports

Technorati Chart: Dubai ports: "Posts that contain Dubai Ports per day for the last 60 days.
Get your own chart!"

TAGS: Dubai ports

How The US Media Picture The UAE?

This is how the US media picture the United Arab Emirates. It doesn't matter what the UAE does, it will always be viewed as a terrorist country in the eyes of the US media.

Dubai Ports World Deal Termination: Bad Global Message With No Justified Basis

As a follow up to my past blog (More Oppositions To UAE Takeover Of US Port Operations):

The House Appropriations Committee voted Wednesday 62-2 to halt the transfer of management of operations at US ports to DPW. Yesterday Dubai Ports World announced it would step back from the deal and “transfer fully the U.S. operations…to a United States entity.”

President Bush said today the collapse of the Dubai ports deal could hurt U.S. efforts to recruit Mideast governments as partners in the worldwide war on terror.

"Dubai services more U.S. military ships than any other country, shares useful intelligence about terrorists ...", Bush said.

A raging New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is lashing out at politicians who blocked the Dubai ports deal, calling the charge that the contract compromised homeland security "the cheapest political shot in the world."

As a consequence of the failed transaction, a new round of trade talks between the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates was postponed.

Yet while Dubai Ports World may be giving up on U.S. ports, Inchcape Shipping Services (ISS) is still in contract with the US Navy to provide shore services for vessels in the Middle East. ISS is an old British company that last January was sold to a Dubai government investment vehicle for $285 million.

A statement issued by ISS declared that “ISS has undergone rigorous external security checks” and has “comprehensive internal policies on security.” Regarding its U.S. port operations, the company states that all port staff “are fully vetted and cleared and undergo a background check to enable them to work within the port limits.”

If the US Congress still have doubts about the UAE and linking it to terrorism, then I think it is more important for it to terminate the US contract with ISS. If the Congress don't trust the UAE, then why allowing Emirates Airlines to continue flying direct from Dubai to New York?

Read Also:
The Dubai Deal You Don't Know About (TIME.com)
Bush: Ports Deal Collapse May Hurt U.S. (Forebes)
Arab Firms May Reconsider U.S. Dealings (Forebes)
Speed Read: How the Ports Deal Died (TIME.com)
Bloomberg fires back at ports deal blockers (Newsday.com)

Bush - Port Deal Collapse sends bad message

A CNN article reports that Bush is concerned that the collapse of the ports deal sends a bad message to US allies in the Middle East.

As John Chilton points out, the UAE always thought that it was a friend of the USA. The recent behaviour by the latter would severely test this notion in the eyes of every Emirati, every Middle Eastern country, and every foreigner who loves the UAE and chooses to live here.

Even more disturbing is that I, for once, find myself agreeing with Bush's concerns.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? - The Remake, Sad Ending

Link to the original.



Genre: Comedy / Drama (more)

Tagline: a love story of today. Unlike the original, the remake has a tragic ending.

Plot Outline: Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn play a couple whose attitudes are challenged when their daughter brings home a fiance who is Arab. In the remake, the Spencer Tracy character (Hillary Clinton in the remake) does not overcome her prejudices against her daughter marrying someone from another culture.

Cast overview, first billed only:

Spencer Tracy.... Hillary Clinton
Sidney Poitier .... His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, vice president and prime minister of the UAE and ruler of Dubai
Katharine Hepburn .... George W. Bush
Katharine Houghton .... Bill Clinton
Monsignor Ryan .... Senator John Warner

Runtime: Less than 45 days

Country: USA with some scenes in the UAE

Language: English with Arabic subtext

Color: Color (Technicolor)

Sound Mix: Mono

"Trivia: Due to Spencer Tracy's health, the cast was always working from two shooting scripts, one with Tracy, one without. Typically, Katharine Hepburn brought Tracy in the morning, they worked until she decided he was too tired, then Tracy and Hepburn left. Sidney Poitier, who already had received a Best Actor Oscar for Lilies of the Field (1963), was intimidated by working with two legends, and preferred to perform to empty high backed chairs."

---
TAGS: ports

POSTED BY: Staff of The Emirates Economist.