FOREIGN AFFAIRS- UNITED ARAB EMIRATES                                                  

                                                                                                RETURN TO AMERICAN FOREIGN AFFAIRS

03/10/06   Dubai Ports World, it is announced, is pulling out of the American component of it's ports proposals.  Perhaps Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, prime minister of the United Arab Emirates and emir of Dubai, has quickly recognized, and is coming to terms with, the political vulnerability of his own position.  He does have assets to protect, and a broadly based American political tantrum, based more on instinct and emotion, not necessarily on fact, will perhaps yield some positive results in the region, and perhaps even with China in laying down some honest markers on the limits of American indulgence.  However, it is not all an American win.  The Republican party in Congress showed the world cowardice (nothing else was expected of Democrats), and it can be expected that international investors will review their portfolios.   Meanwhile, the security of American ports remains the same open issue, with or without Dubai Ports World.  The failure to act in a timely manner on a list of issues (e.g., the Patriot Act) by American administrators, regulators and Congress itself, is evidence that we are our own worst enemy 4 1/2 years after 09/11.

Having been rescued by Dubai itself from our own ridiculous behavior, there is great opportunity here for ourselves to follow up with much constructive diplomacy, subsequent to much needed repair, not only with the UAE, but regionally, and in the Far East.  It is possible that our recent excellent agreement with India (thank you President Bush) on nuclear cooperation was a positive development working in the background.  If we could only get the sweetcakes out of the Department of State and the CIA.  Meanwhile the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and others in the Arab world, must deal with us, on both market and security collisions, and very shortly, we must deal with Iran on the issue of their nuclear adventure.  Sometimes good thing happen accidentally, but be ready to switch to cash.  JES

03/09/06  Statements emanating today from the Royal family controlling the United Arab Emirates framed as threats, rather than attempts to persuade, throw gasoline on the fire at the wrong time.   The Mountain Observer, and most real Americans generally, do not respond well to threats by foreigners, in particular those dependant on our presence for their own survival.  In the context of past and continuing UAE financial support of declared terrorist organizations, apparently ongoing since 09/11, (precise sources and recipients  still unclear), these comments open the door to an interpretation of events as conscious UAE subterfuge of ourselves, although a firm conclusion on that point may be premature.

They may have oil, but we have the biggest market, and we are in a position to shop, especially if we can get American Democrats to green light domestic drilling (a day dream).   The Emirs have made a tremendous investment in the physical infrastructure of the UAE, both to market their product and to live well, a life style all threatened by IslamicFascist terrorists about them aroused by association with the West.  The UAE Royals are in the same position as the Saudi Royal family, and both either err in the belief that their more militant brethren can be indefinitely purchased, or that a common vision with militant Islam, in the end, is a holy priority.   From our perspective, it is a distinction without a difference; the welcome of American sailors and the purchase of Boeing airliners begin to appear as a Trojan Horse, possibly insincere.   A mutual failure to cooperate on the ports deal is too bad, because there was an opportunity for all parties in the deal to work toward a more forward mutual relationship.  However, like the Turks early in 2003, who now confront a more hostile Europe, the UAE Royal family will now find itself boxed in.  As of this writing, desperate last minute efforts are ongoing to rescue the deal, however, in view of the comments by the UAE Royals referred to above, I am now convinced that it would be an error to proceed.

In the background of this discussion, two general issues hover:

First, there is the matter of Globalization and free trade.  Our own Elites, most especially the Libertarian components of the Republican Coalition, have failed for a long time to recognize the belief by a broad segment of the American population, from Left to Right, including more genuine Conservatives, that unqualified "free trade" was a ticking political time bomb right here at home.  This has been an issue of major concern to the Mountain Observer, and frequently commented about herein (Elsewhere for more detailed discussion).  In a climate of general disagreement, frustration, obfuscation and lack of action regarding the management of our own borders, perhaps our Libertarian Elites in the White House, Congress, K Street and a thousand Board Rooms have never recognized the depth of anger that has gradually manifested itself over a number of years.  The tendency has been to simply dismiss skeptics of "free trade" as self interested obstructionists and, horrors, protectionists, concerned only about their own pocket books.   Now the fact of the matter is that the Mountain Observer believes very forcefully in genuine international free markets, subordinate to our national security interests, including a balanced domestic economy.   As I study further the domestic political reaction to this "ports deal", I have come to sense that my frustration on our management of "free trade" and our balance of payments may be a significant component of a broadly shared frustration on this issue.

Secondly, there is the issue of what makes mohamed tick?   What makes mohamed tick is the deeply held genuine belief that God is not only on  mohamed's side, but that positive martyrdom in the course of destroying the infidel will be rewarded in Heaven.  It is necessary to point out to clueless Secular Western Know-it-Alls, that this belief system, embracing suicide bombers as heroes of the Faith, is a total inversion of what is left of the Judeo-Christian perspective on these matters, which goes a long way to explain the Islamic hatred of Israel and contempt for Christianity.  The moral equivalence is not between Islam and Jews and Christians, but between Islam and clueless Secular Western Know-it-Alls in a common rejection of serious Jews and Christians.  To be sure, it is an interest by accident, not purpose, against serious Jews and Christians, as it is against clueless Secular Western Know-it-Alls that IslamicFascists are most preoccupied over the various issues of cultural decadence.   JES

03/04/06  On the United Arab Emirates / Dubai Ports World deal, clearly this has turned into another Harriet Miers moment for the President.  There are good solid arguments for the deal to proceed, and there are a host of unanswered questions as to why it should not.  The original error in the handling of this matter was a failure on the part of Homeland Security to not, early on in it's existence, to put a leash on the processes of the now famous Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which has been around for years.   This is the same bureaucratic empire that winked at the Chinese takeover of port operations in Long Beach CA. during the early 90's, about which the current Left Wing complainers complained not a peep.  As everyone over the age of 21 knows, committees are not designed to make sensible executive decisions, and this one certainly has no charter to steer American foreign policy.  That job belongs to the President and his Cabinet.  There should have been a very high level sign-off on the deal.  So it came to pass that the President got blindsided.  So where to go from here? We need to re-establish parental control at the top.   There are real pro's and con's to this deal, and if it goes ahead it should be with a list of security and policy qualifications, generated by the President, not Congress.  That would be a short term fix.   A long term fix would include an in depth examination of what is preventing, or not appealing to, American investors, in these port operation contracts.  I do not know the answer to that question.  We need to find out and remove the barriers and the disincentives.   Meanwhile, the President's casual attitude toward border security in general, coupled with a reluctance to profile, has gotten in the way of sound policy development, and set the wrong tone with the public at large for selling whatever virtues do exist in the newly proposed port arrangements.  JES

03/01/06  On the United Arab Emirates / Dubai Ports World deal, there remain some serious questions to be answered.

    1). Where is the money coming from, and where will it be going?

    2). Why is it that American investors appear to be so disinterested in these port investments in general ?  Is there a premium to be paid above and beyond reasonable market value that functions as a disincentive to normal free market considerations, and if so, wherein lays the value of that premium ?

It is entirely reasonable that there is a general public uproar about all this, and it is long overdue that folks have gotten curious about the same process that resulted in a similar result with the Chinese in Long Beach, CA., several years ago.  The Mountain Observer's concern is not racist; the concern is about the day to day governance of these operations in the hands of those who may not have friendly intentions toward the United States.  Now the fact of the matter is that all Arabs are not our enemies.  Not a few are our friends, quietly begging for our support, and risking their lives so doing in a sea of monstrous terrorist inclination.  Furthermore, not a few, less interested in philosophical debate, are more interested in material benefits.  In our struggle with IslamicFacism we need to exercise great caution about throwing the baby out with the bath water.  We have a very similar problem with the Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, the Pakistanis, and so on.  It is not a time for rash conclusions.   Patience and consideration in the area of foreign affairs is not historically an American virtue, especially when our soldier's lives, and our treasure is at stake.  However, in the struggle with IslamicFacism, this is going to have to change, or real tragedy will descend upon us.   Now what to do about the United Arab Emirates / Dubai Ports World deal ?  We proceed with great caution, and our eyes wide open, and we do not leave it all to the Coast Guard and the Homeland Security Agency.   JES

*******************************

NOTE:  From the standpoint of national security, the deal as originally proposed was no more threatening than what has already accumulated over the years through similar arrangements with other foreign operators, including the Chinese Communists, and yet all these deals have never before aroused public interest.  Is there a national security issue?  In the broader context, yes, and the issue should be worked at the higher level, and in the same plain as our own border security problem with Mexico.  However, diplomatically, it is a delicate issue that requires some care in handling.  It is necessary to sort out the wheat from the chaff.  Real friends, down to the individual level, are a precious commodity for us in the Middle East, and some cautious reconciliation of problems caused by a poorly developed decision in the first place is in order.  JES  

*******************************          

02/24/06  The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), an obscure bureaucratic lash up of obscure bureaucracies, signs off on a pending lease deal for US port operations by Dubai Ports World, a creature of the United Arab Emirates.   What is an American Nationalist Conservative to make of this?   It occurs to the Mountain Observer that the first order of business is to get the facts straight.  In this war against IslamicFascism, we are in an asymmetrical battle against certain ideological forces, not nations.  Yeh I know this is a tough concept for a lot of folks to grasp, but it is a fact of life, and our lives depend on it.  Was this a good decision?  Yes, in context, when the facts are known.  Are there legitimate security concern?  Yes, but they are minor by comparison to the total problem of foreign presence within our borders.   When things settle down for me a little bit, I will come back on this in more detail.  Meanwhile, rest assured that I am engaged in extensive data mining on the subject.   JES

02/21/06  There is much in the news about big changes in leasing arrangements at 6 major port container operations about which I have some things to say, but not right now, except to say be careful about what you are hearing.  Objective reality is in short supply, as is the accuracy of the reporting. 

FMOWEB 110-042 FOREIGN AFFAIRS- UNITED ARAB EMIRATES