Dubai port deal

President Bush (November 7, 2003): ``As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export.''

Curiously, in the landmark speech on freedom and democracy cited above, President Bush omitted any mention of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). In his laundry lists that day, Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen, Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, (and the Palestinians too) are all cited as Arab/Muslim governments ``beginning to see the need for change.'' But there is nothing, good nor bad, concerning UAE.

In a recommended piece from December 2004, Counterpunch writer Brian Cloughley reminds us of the actual relations President Bush has been conducting with UAE, along with a description of the state of democracy there:

The UAE is efficiently run and seems a happy enough country, providing you are not a Filipino domestic slave/servant or interested in democracy or the rights of women or other silly things. Dubai is a rich and thriving place of outstanding kitsch and vulgarity and is a popular destination for tourists who like that sort of thing...But don't let's kid ourselves that there is ever going to be freedom to vote in the UAE. The last ruler died November 2, and Bush sent this kind message: ``The United States mourns the passing of a great friend of our country, Shaykh Zayid bin Sultan Al Nahayan''. . .

Then Bush informed us that the dead autocrat was ``. . . an elder statesman, and a close ally. He and his fellow rulers built their federation into a prosperous, tolerant, and well-governed state.'' And Colin Powell echoed him: ``Sheikh Zayed ... was a friend. He stood both at home and abroad as a symbol of benevolent and wise leadership characterized by generosity, tolerance, and avid pursuit of development and modernization.''

Modernization, eh? And tolerance as well. Now that is really amazing, considering that Colin Powell's own State Department tells us the place ``has no political parties. There is talk of steps toward democratic government, but nothing concrete has emerged.'' Does Washington have a different definition of ``tolerance'' to the rest of us?

There is not a word about democracy in the UAE, but who bothers about democracy when ``US President George W Bush received here [Washington] yesterday evening Sheikh Hamdan bin Zayed Al Nahyan . . . UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs . . . President Bush hailed UAE-US relations, citing as an example the visit of Sheikh Hamdan to the US and the subsequent outcome of the meetings of the joint committees between the two countries.''

And the State Department explains all the lovey-dovey stuff by saying: ``The United States has enjoyed friendly relations with the UAE since 1971. Private commercial ties, especially in petroleum, have developed into friendly government-to-government ties which include security assistance . . . The air force is currently awaiting an expected 2005 delivery of 80 advanced US F-16 multirole fighter aircraft.''

Which they need like a hole in the head; but never mind, it's only US citizens' petroleum taxes that pay for them.

As long as it has oil for Washington and buys F-16s the UAE is keeping the world safe for democracy. It doesn't matter that democracy doesn't exist in the country itself, because it will continue to receive every bit of support from Bush no matter what it does. As it happens, I think that benevolent autocracy as it applies in the UAE is what suits the country (apart from total lack of women's rights)...

Others have been pointing out the suspected ties between Osama bin Laden and the Dubai royals. I have even posted in the past about mysterious al-Queda-linked characters and financial transactions from Dubai to the 911 terrorists, including ``a $100,000 payment wired by Saeed Sheikh from Dubai to one of hijacker Mohamed Atta's two bank accounts in Florida.''

The 911 Commission report is very hazy on these terrorist-financing issues, inconsistencies about which I posted again last year.

More information is trickling out now about inside-administration ties. US Treasury Secretary John Snow,

whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port. Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.

[An]other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.

So, in a very rare occurance, I find myself agreeing with the likes of Senate Majority Leader Frist that this port deal may not be such a good idea.