UAE, Jolted by Port Deal, Is Key Western Arms Buyer

February 24, 2006 4:57 AM

UAE, Jolted by Port Deal, Is Key Western Arms Buyer The United Arab Emirates (UAE), the centre of a growing controversy over its proposed management of U.S. port terminals, is one of the world's most prolific arms buyers and a multi-billion-dollar military market both for the United States and Western Europe.
posted by Postroad (57 comments total)

And the UAE buying American weapons is shocking because... oh wait it isn't.

Sepia Mutiny had a much better post on this topic.
posted by chunking express at 5:07 AM on February 24, 2006

And? Please do explain. You see from outside the US your "Port crisis" looks like racist hysteria, as does this - please put me right.
posted by grahamwell at 5:07 AM on February 24, 2006

The delivery of 80 U.S.-built F-16 E/F fighter planes -- described as one of the biggest single arms packages to a Middle Eastern nation and finalised back in March 2000 -- is to be completed only in 2007.

So if it's not a security threat to sell the UAE fighter aircraft, and it's not a security threat to sell them a port...

but she's a witch! Burn her! Burn her!
posted by three blind mice at 5:31 AM on February 24, 2006

Besides creating buffer zones and proxies, which I don't think apply to present times, is there a valid national security rationale for selling arms to other countries?
posted by MrMulan at 5:41 AM on February 24, 2006

Is there a valid national security rationale for selling arms to other countries

It funds the companies that equip the American Military.
posted by srboisvert at 5:50 AM on February 24, 2006

Umm...shouldn't the American Military fund the companies that equip them?
posted by MrMulan at 5:53 AM on February 24, 2006

The traditional argument goes.. "If we don't, somebody else will"

And you don't want that.
posted by grahamwell at 5:58 AM on February 24, 2006

How would we know that other countries have arms we need to defend against if we didn't sell those arms in the first place?
posted by Slothrup at 5:59 AM on February 24, 2006

MrMulan, [grimace /]. Well, how would that work, really? Not enough revenue stream, or the weapons end up costing even more than they already do (because the volume isn't high enough to achieve economies of scale).

Not saying I like it, but it's an economic inevitability. See Eisenhower's famous[ly ironic] last SotU for a cogent summary of how it happens and why it's bad. In part:

[....]

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

How does this relate to the port deal? Well, I could draw a comparison: Having our critical ports managed by interestes that could at any moment shift to become antithetical to our own, and worse yet in subtle ways, would not be a Good Thing. Truth be told, though, I don't worry terribly much about that. What bothers me is, again, the attitude of the Administration on the matter. They could manage it very simply and cleanly by agreeing to look it over again, maybe a little more publicly this time. But no, they have to play hardball and re-play the "trust me, I'm the President" hand.
posted by lodurr at 6:05 AM on February 24, 2006

The leadership of Dubai is a monarchy, and directly controls Dubai Ports World. Not wanting a foreign monarchy in charge of one's ports is reasonable, not racist.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 6:07 AM on February 24, 2006

The leadership of the United Kingdom is a monarchy. Didn't stop P&O. Work out who your friends are and treat them as such, or you won't have so many. Just saying.
posted by grahamwell at 6:13 AM on February 24, 2006

Lengthy (but most definitely worth reading) report on why Dubai could be the most important city of the 21st century.

Protocols: arguably yes, but there's no mention of the fact that the monarchy directols controls Dubai Ports World. Nor is it brought up in the Sepia Mutiny post.
posted by Len at 6:13 AM on February 24, 2006

grahamwell, if you think The Queen runs P&O you are mistaken.

Dubai Ports World is indeed owned by the Dubai government.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 6:30 AM on February 24, 2006

I don't see why this is such a big deal. I worry that it stems from an American tendency to lump all Arabs together. The UAE is a very modern gluf state, home of the vegas of the east that is Dubai and emirates airlines. It's pretty westernised.

Also not sure I understand Grahamwell's point unless it's a very subtle one. Yes, technically the queen can refuse to sign laws. And the second she does she will lose that right forever. She is a figurehead, an historical relic and has no real power. It's a silly comparison.
posted by rhymer at 6:38 AM on February 24, 2006

The leadership of the United Kingdom is a monarchy.

The United Kingdom's leaders don't have ties to al Qaeda.

The United States is by far the largest exporter of weapons in the world, selling almost twice as many weapons as the next 14 countries combined.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:42 AM on February 24, 2006

I worry that it stems from an American tendency to lump all Arabs together.

You need not worry, i'm pretty sure this is exactly why this is a big issue.
posted by chunking express at 6:43 AM on February 24, 2006

your "Port crisis" looks like racist hysteria

Because, it is.
posted by j-urb at 6:45 AM on February 24, 2006

Yeah, chunking, I guess it is. I mean, UAE run one of the world's best airlines. They should be fine to run ports. Nonetheless it's odd to fine myself in agreement with Bush.
posted by rhymer at 6:47 AM on February 24, 2006

I will never hand over America's security decisions to foreign leaders and international bodies that do not have America's interests at heart.
... the senator would have America bend over backwards to satisfy a handful of governments with agendas different from our own.--Bush about Kerry, 04
posted by amberglow at 7:08 AM on February 24, 2006

Funny. No one seems to 1) Be disturbed simply because the company is run by a government, rather than private, and 2) why couldn't an American company do the job? Must be export everything?!
posted by Goofyy at 7:10 AM on February 24, 2006

Goofyy, i'm guessing like most things, the company from the UAE offered to the same job better for less money. Such is the way all contracts are usally awarded, no?
posted by chunking express at 7:14 AM on February 24, 2006

I was never bothered by the idea of the ports deal, but on the other hand I'm not worried about terrorists in the first place.

On the other hand, I think the deal really underscores how bush will just go to bat for whatever commercial intrest pays him enough.
posted by delmoi at 7:14 AM on February 24, 2006

Delmoi, I think you're missing something. The president realises that this fuss is seriously injuring the commercial interests of the US. Put simply, every present or prospective foreign investor, the people who fund your deficit and keep your country afloat, is looking at this hysteria and wondering if they might be next. As I understand it this is the doing of Michael Savage and similar demagogues, who seem to be able to whip up a nasty little storm, pretty much on demand. This is a very unattractive display and it's discouraging, particularly if you're an Arab with cash. I would say it's good news for us Brits though, and all of your commercial rivals, but I'm not sure it's good for anyone in the end.
posted by grahamwell at 7:23 AM on February 24, 2006

I think this is it. This will finally make it all crumble down. Bush is losing it now.

Start the frog marches!
posted by dios at 7:51 AM on February 24, 2006

so let me get something straight: i keep hearing that the so-called "hysteria" over this deal is going to make countries in the middle east think twice about investing their money here.

so middle eastern/muslim investors are cool with torture, secret prisons and tens of thousands of dead iraqi civilians, but if we refuse a port deal that looks shady (the fact that the purchasing group has ties to a whitehouse insider who was part of the vetting group seems to have been quietly dropped from reports), that's going to be the tipping point that turns them against us?

if that's true, that says some very ugly things about our species.
posted by lord_wolf at 7:53 AM on February 24, 2006

Conason: Business as usual: Bush's strong support of the Dubai ports deal isn't so surprising in light of his family's many financial ties to Arab sheikdoms.
posted by amberglow at 7:55 AM on February 24, 2006

Deals like this occur because it's cheaper for the U.S. Military (that has a specific budget) to buy in bulk a lot of the time. Which makes it cheaper for the govn't at large. It also benefits arms produces. But, yeah, military officers sometimes have to go make pitches so that we can save money. Whether this is good or bad is up to you.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 8:13 AM on February 24, 2006

And finally ...

"... Cool down, people. This is how the world works in the age of globalisation. Of course, he [David Brooks] is correct. But what a killjoy. This is a fun flap, the kind that brings us together. Republicans and Democrats are frothing in unison, instead of polarising incivilities. Together, they are all thumping righteously on the poor president. I expect he will fold, or at least retreat tactically by ordering further investigation.

A conservative blaming hysteria is hysterical, when you think about it, and a bit late. Hysteria launched Bush's invasion of Iraq. It created that monstrosity called Homeland Security and pumped up defence spending by more than 40%....He taught them how to play this game ....Very few dare to challenge the mindset. Thousands have died for it...."

Indeed.
posted by grahamwell at 8:32 AM on February 24, 2006

GoofyyFunny. No one seems to 1) Be disturbed simply because the company is run by a government, rather than private,....

I don't know about Nobody, but I am. (To the extent that I worry about it, that's why.)
posted by lodurr at 8:36 AM on February 24, 2006

What Goofyy said--why is it socialism for the US to have a state-owned company, but it's capitalism when we hire a state-owned company to work for us? (Speaking as a USian, of course.)
posted by bardic at 9:15 AM on February 24, 2006

I, too, find it a little hypocritical that Bush is in a hurry to sell off an operation like this to a state-owned company. I'm also not terribly worried about the terrorism angle, but the cronyism and pooh-poohing of due process here is too much to ignore.

And, again, I don't really think something like port operations should be sold to ANY foreign interest (nor do I advocate anyone else selling off theirs, to be fair).

Question regarding arms sales: When another country buys American arms, is that the U.S. gov't approving direct sales from the manufacturer (and of course reaping taxes), or is the U.S. gov't selling something it has already bought?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 9:37 AM on February 24, 2006

There are legitimate concerns about this deal that have nothing to do with race, but those concerns would not have received a proper airing had it not been for foaming at the mouth racists (Micheal "turd world" Savage") riling up the same people who were swayed by the southern strategy.
I guess the chickens have come home to roost. You spend 6 years vilifying muslims and arabs in general, and then you expect the rubes to do a 180 and approve of the A-rabs running the ports?
This really is the gang that couldn't shoot straight.
Are there any red state incumbents up for election this year that will back this deal?
posted by 2sheets at 10:05 AM on February 24, 2006

There are legitimate concerns about this deal that have nothing to do with race, but those concerns would not have received a proper airing had it not been for foaming at the mouth racists (Micheal "turd world" Savage") riling up the same people who were swayed by the southern strategy.
I guess the chickens have come home to roost. You spend 6 years vilifying muslims and arabs in general, and then you expect the rubes to do a 180 and approve of the A-rabs running the ports?
This really is the gang that couldn't shoot straight.
Are there any red state incumbents up for election this year that will back this deal?
posted by 2sheets at 10:07 AM on February 24, 2006

Forgive me if I;m wrong, but aren't most Chinese companies heavily tied to their goverment? like the ones that run several ports?
posted by Artw at 10:36 AM on February 24, 2006

I saw a story on Kos yesterday that hinted at James A. Baker being involved in the whole deal -- his law firm "coincidentally" just opened a new office in Dubai, apparently complementing Baker & Botts's existing office in Riyadh. With a deal to run US ports you can imagine the sort of mind-boggling representation fees involved for whoever represents Dubai Ports in the US.

Always follow the money. Bush owes Baker a big one for handling the 2000 election mess, and it looks like the payoff has come at last.
posted by clevershark at 10:46 AM on February 24, 2006

What stuns me is that the USA doesn't own and control its own ports. WTF? If there's something that should be federally operated, it's gotta be the Ports system.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:56 AM on February 24, 2006

...If there's something that should be federally operated...

Commie!
posted by Artw at 11:05 AM on February 24, 2006

Airports are privately-managed, not just in the US but in Canada and (I think) most western countries.
posted by clevershark at 11:06 AM on February 24, 2006

I think the whole argument is beside the point to what the real problem is: PORT SECURITY SUCKS, and it's going to continue to suck whether this deal goes down or not. And beefing up security is probably the one issue that most people could agree upon, and could actually be worked out (at a fraction of the cost of the Iraq War!)

It was a major issue in the Kerry campaign, which Bush dutifully ignored. And once Bush won the election, I knew it would continue to be ignored. At least this little spat is putting a tiny spotlight on the problem, even if its intent is wrong.
posted by fungible at 11:41 AM on February 24, 2006

"You could already see some UAE unhappiness over a failed deal to buy Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft due to the U.S. refusal to fully transfer Link-16 secure communications technology," he added.

So they can't be trusted with some crypto technology they could buy from someone else anyway, BUT they can be trusted in managing national ports.

And there's no good managing company in U.S. by americans for americans ?

Yet I guess the population isn't going to protest, they are too scared by O'Reilly and being called liberal !
posted by elpapacito at 12:32 PM on February 24, 2006

Didn't Ned Beatty once give a speech on this process?


You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it. Is that clear? You think you've merely stopped a business deal? That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity. It is ecological balance. You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations; there are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems; one vast, interwoven, interacting, multivaried, multinational dominion of dollars.

This speech would me a much more honest "State of the Union" in my opinion
posted by any major dude at 12:45 PM on February 24, 2006

There is only one holistic system of systems; one vast, interwoven, interacting, multivaried, multinational dominion of dollars.

Uhhhhh and the illuminati rule the world ! It's the masonry I tell you !

Except that the arabs needn't give any of the billion they took or if they want certainly NOT at the conditions dictated by some tool on the other face of the planet. Their good is in global demand so world better shut the fuck up and comply.

So I guess military , paid by taxpayer in money and in blood, is actually useful when somebody refuses to pay.
posted by elpapacito at 12:56 PM on February 24, 2006

And Daily Show or Colbert was commenting that less than 5% of all containers at the ports are inspected.

One could ship one helluva nuke in one of those containers.

But it's okay: security won't be run by the UAE. No, it'll be operated by the same incompetent and corrupt boobs that are doing it now.

Really, it is quite amazing that for all the insecurity, SFA has happened in the way of terrorism over here.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:59 PM on February 24, 2006

It was a major issue in the Kerry campaign, which Bush dutifully ignored. And once Bush won the election, I knew it would continue to be ignored. At least this little spat is putting a tiny spotlight on the problem, even if its intent is wrong.

Here are some more spotlights--and the exact same thing is true of most GOP Senators: Santorum has voted against Democratic efforts to up port security no less than SIX times. For years Santorum has consistently voted against securing our ports including:
- 2005: Santorum Voted Against $150 Million for Port Security Grants to Help Reduce U.S. Vulnerabilities.
- 2004: Santorum Voted Against $150 Million to Develop Equipment to Detect Nuclear Weapons Hidden in Containers in U.S. Ports.
- 2003: Santorum Voted Against $142 Million for the Coast Guard, Along With Port and Maritime Security Grants.
- 2003: Santorum Voted Against $238 Million to Improve Port and Border Security, Despite $1 Billion in Requests From Ports.
- 2003: Santorum Voted Against $1.13 Billion for Homeland Security, Including Funding to Strengthen Security at the Nation’s Ports.
- 2003: Santorum Voted Against $1 Billion to Improve Port Security, Including the U.S. Customs Service and Grants to States and Localities.
posted by amberglow at 2:06 PM on February 24, 2006

For three straight fiscal years following September 11, 2001, the Administration did not request any funding for port security. For Fiscal Year 2005, the President's budget request includes only $46 million for port security grants.

Senate Republicans have rejected efforts to strengthen port security. Senate Republicans defeated several Democratic efforts to improve security at points of entry to the United States, including the following: ...
posted by amberglow at 2:16 PM on February 24, 2006

Always follow the money.

Remember that about the other side in this as well. There are American and other companies who would love to get sweetheart deals on running these port terminals. I really refuse to believe that Diane Feinstein is upset about this because she really cares-- because anyone who is involved even a little bit in the global economy, or has studied the port system at all, knows there is no real security issue involved in this particular deal.
posted by chaz at 2:46 PM on February 24, 2006

Question: if it is permissible for Dubai to ownm the control of the ports in the US, is ilt possible for US businesses to fully own things in Dubai?
posted by Postroad at 3:46 PM on February 24, 2006

postroad: you thinking about a fiscal paradise trickery ?
posted by elpapacito at 4:35 PM on February 24, 2006

Regarding the cuts to operational capacity of the Coast Guard and the inadequacy of Customs, James Ridgeway writes:

This is a dream setup for any arms or dope dealer, and that's exactly what the United Arab Emirates is all about.The ties between its top officials and royal family with the Taliban and Al Qaeda go back at least a decade.

The UAE is not only the center of financial dealings in the Persian Gulf, it is switching central for dope and arms dealing. The dope comes out of Afghanistan into the UAE where tax monies are collected and used to buy arms, which were sent back in for the Taliban. Some of this money is thought to have helped finance the 9-11 attacks. A money trail is set forth in the government's filings in the Moussaoui case.

Long at the center of this operation is the mysterious Russian arms dealer, Victor Bout.... His planes are registered to various companies all operating out of the United Arab Emirates. ...
posted by amberglow at 8:34 PM on February 24, 2006

Thanks, amberglow, for consistently furthering my depression. You really can't make this stuff up.
posted by fungible at 9:21 PM on February 24, 2006

Meanwhile, freedom loving democratic (yeeaaah why not it's all bullshit) UAE censors BoingBoing for being incompatible with anything they say.
posted by elpapacito at 9:21 AM on February 25, 2006

BUSH CALMS GOP: AT LEAST PORTS WEREN'T SOLD TO GAYS OR BLACKS ; >
posted by amberglow at 1:24 PM on February 25, 2006

this is good: ...Is he serious? The monarch who called a "crusade" against Islamic terrorists, who made sure there was an Islamic terrorist alert every month before the 2004 election (and none since), who rounded up countless Muslims, imprisoned them without due process and tortured them, who lied to the people so he could go to war and expand American empire in the Islamic Middle East, and exploited the people's fear of "Islamo-Fascists" to ensure his re-election, is now chastising the people for being concerned about an Islamic country running U.S. ports? What you reap, you will sow, your majesty! You succeeded beyond your wildest dreams in exploiting the fears, the prejudices, and lack of sophistication of many of your supporters, and now it is possible (although no sure thing considering how the Congress always ends up bowing to your commands) that this little tactic will backfire and cause you to lose what you and your cronies have really been all about: the acquisition of corporate wealth and power.

While most people don't understand international business, globalization and corporate control of the planet, the issue of an Islamic country running American ports is an issue the people can understand, kind of like Monica's dress.
...
posted by amberglow at 1:38 PM on February 25, 2006

Since you are all curious, I am against the deal. UAE = two-faced opportunists with dubious (dubaious?) track record: recognized the Taliban, doesn't recognize Israel, 9/11 nexus, pretend to be Muslims but have alcohol. CAN'T TRUST 'M.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:40 PM on February 25, 2006

Former Sen. Bob Dole says he won't lobby Congress - not even his wife, Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C. - to push through a questioned deal that would allow a Middle Eastern company to take control of six U.S. ports. ...

But Sen. Warner is:... The action came after the Bush administration and leading members of Congress, including Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, quietly told the company that more time was needed to derail Congressional action to block the deal. ...
posted by amberglow at 3:09 PM on February 25, 2006

Al Qaeda warned the government of the United Arab Emirates more than three years ago that it "infiltrated" key government agencies, according to a disturbing document released by the U.S. military.

The warning was contained in a June 2002 message to UAE rulers, in which the terror network demanded the release of an unknown number of "mujahedeen detainees," who it said had been arrested during a government crackdown in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. ...
posted by amberglow at 8:21 PM on February 25, 2006

and it's 21 ports, not 6.
posted by amberglow at 9:17 AM on February 26, 2006