Last week I wrote:

"My other hunch is that someone is going to explain it all to the lawmakers pretty soon and that this story will blow over rather quickly."

Well I don't think I got that one entirely right. Still, I stand by my contention that the deal is going to get done and Dubai Ports World is going to be getting control of the port operations to which they are entitled. In the meantime, here is a bit more information about some of what has been happening on the story as of late.

Following the lead of a bipartisan groups of lawmakers, several bloggers have gotten their knickers in a twist this week. The reason is the pending take over by Dubai Ports Worldwide of London-based Peninsular & Oriental, a takeover which would result in DPW having control of commercial operations at six US ports- New York, New Jersey, New Orleans, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Miami. Here is a sample of what several have had to say.

Michelle Malkin has a few posts on this topic- Stop the Port Sellout and Our Ports, Our Sovereignty. As the title's suggests, Michelle is strongly opposed to the DPW takeover. Both of her quote news accounts and editorials calling for the Bush administration to overrule the decision of the "secretive" Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), an interagency panel headed by the Treasury Department, allowing the sale to go through. One rather unfortunate aspect of Michelle's posts is a link to an article written by Debbie Schlussel that includes dated and, I think, grossly inaccurate information about Dubai's Crown Prince, Sheikh Mohammed, aka Sheikh Mo:

Like most Arab leaders, Al-Maktoum gives only lip service to condemning terrorism, while his country sponsors, aids, and abets it.

Dubai, without apologizing for helping terrorists or price-gouging us on oil, needs the American tourist dollar more than ever.

If Ms. Schlussel has any evidence for the first claim, I'd be very interested in hearing it. What she seems to be doing is engaging in the practice of guilt-by-association. If your an Arab sheikh in a country that borders Saudi Arabia, you must either be a terrorist or support their objectives.

As for the second point, Dubai does not rely on American tourists for its prosperity. Tourism is growing here, as are other sectors of the economy, but not the Western tourists you see here are from Europe, not the US. I have yet to meet one American tourist in my six months here. Every American I've met is here for work, not play. When you consider that it's a 7 hour flight from the east coast of the US to Europe, and then another seven to Dubai from Europe, you can see why Americans aren't now and never have been falling over themselves to get here on vacation.

In a post entitlted "Suddenly Now, Hillary is Concerned about Security?" Teri O'Brien of Webloggin links to a Reuters piece entitled “Democrats plan bill to block Dubai-U.S. port deal.” and makes notes the irony attendant to Sen. Clinton's support for it:

The two democrats are Bob Menendez of New Jersey, who took Jon Corzine’s seat when he became governor and—here’s the best part—Hillary Clinton! Yes, the same Hillary Clinton who supported, and then opposed clemency for 16 FALN terrorists who were responsible for more than 100 bombings. Also the same Hillary Clinton who was co-president during the 8 years when Osama bin Laden was offered up on silver platter to U.S. 3 times. The Sudan’s proposal was rejected because Bill Clinton couldn’t think of anything to charge Osama with. There’s that September 10 party theory of fighting terrorism as law enforcement in action.

Captain Ed of Captain's Quarter's asks the question "Is This Our New Security Initiative?" His answer describes Dubai this way:

Dubai is part of the United Arab Emirates, a collection of authoritarian regimes considered friendly to the US and the West. However, UAE has had its troubles with Islamists in the past, as Michelle (Malkin) points out. In fact, the 9/11 Commission notes UAE involvement in Islamist terrorism in several spots.

He then goes on to list several passages from the 9/11 report that highlights links between the Bin Ladin, the 9/11 hijackers, and 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. While I have no grounds to challenge the accuracy of those statements I would note that the quotes mostly note that while some the 9/11 operatives lived and worked in, transited through, and received funds from the UAE, no one has alleged state support for terrorism by the UAE. There are undoubtedly people in this country sympathetic to terrorists, but where is that not the case?

Also, if the Captain's standards are applied across the board, then what to do about Germany? Until the departure Gerhard Schoeder, who was actually in Dubai this week, Germany was openly hostile to the US in ways that the UAE has never been. If I understand Captain Ed's reasoning, if I extend it to its logical conclusion, Germany ought not to be allowed to run any ports in the US either. I don't believe they do, but China apparently does

Finally, here's a link to my delicious page where I have book marked twelve recent op-eds about the Dubai Ports deal.

Tags: Dubai.| UAE | Ports |