This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at

Some Final Thoughts on the Dubai Ports Deal by William Mayer editor of Pipeline News

March 13, 2006

Some Final Thoughts About the Dubai Ports Deal

March 13, 2006 - Washington, DC - - Viewed from certain angles, the port deal seems to be an odd little excursive trail off a more well worn pathway towards national security.

Some have claimed that nobody looks good in the wake of this busted proposal.

On that point we beg to differ.

That portion of the public and political class who rose as one – for the right reason – to oppose the UAE's plans are to be congratulated, for their astuteness if nothing else.

Before we define the right reason, let's take a look at a couple of the wrong reasons.

The easiest of these to identify was opposing the deal for pure political advantage, this includes most of the Democrat leadership and an uncomfortably large percentage of the GOP brain trust.

These people simply decided they had better get behind the wave lest they be crushed before it on the supposed rocks of perceived public opinion.

These folks are cowards, a class not unfamiliar with governance unfortunately.

Then there was a not insignificant number who opposed the deal out of pure motives, but whose reasoning for doing so bore no relationship to the issues actually involved.

Such people thought the deal consisted of ports being purchased by foreign governments and security being wrested away from the Coast Guard.

Call these people honestly mistaken.

Such have no business even being allowed close to the reins of political power because they are morons.

So what were the right reasons for crushing the port deal?

They are many and one at the same time and not that easy to set forth.

Let me try to explain this with a small digression.

The West defines itself if nothing else by a social contract between the governed and those who govern.

That contract though not exactly the same in all countries combines certain "rights of man" or better yet rights enumerated – as they are in the United States – in a written and amendable constitution with a certain open-mindedness called tolerance.

Tolerance for minority viewpoints, for minorities themselves, tolerance even for crack-pots and fools, even dangerous fools.

That contract manifests itself in these fortunate societies in the form of liberty, limited government, equality before the law and private property.

Some political scientists call this classical liberalism.

Getting back to the port deal it is precepts like these that might allow, in less stressful times, a foreign government to purchase access to sensitive industries which if improperly managed might do irreparable harm to the host country.

In such circumstances, at issue – stripped of all political considerations - is whether the offer is legitimate, wether it represents the highest dollar offer or bid and if the contractor is reasonably competent to fulfill the terms of the contract.

Nations like the United States being willing to entertain such offers of foreign investment are rare.

What is even rarer [and of debatable wisdom] is the willingness of countries like America to allow foreign countries the right to establish institutions here whose very purpose is to undermine elemental values and beliefs.

What comes to mind here is Americans allowing Saudi Arabia Wahhabis to use their massive wealth to endow Islamic Studies department chairs in various universities - call these cultural jihad centers.

This has been done all over the United States but two examples will suffice

On December 14, 2005 Billionaire Wahhabi Saudi prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal Al-Saud [reportedly the richest of the Saudi oil princes] announced that his holding company "King Holdings" had donated $20 million each to Georgetown and Harvard universities to fund Islamic study centers.

Harvard calls their newly endowed Wahhabi entity the al-Walheed Center.

Georgetown's is the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.

As a result when the sun sets over Georgetown the crosses on its buildings are joined by the specter of the Islamic crescent…looming defiantly.

Similar proposals are actively being solicited from other American universities including the University of Central Florida about which we have written of late - University of Central Florida Slated To Become Cultural Jihad Hub.

This raises the question of reciprocity, or lack thereof.

For the most part the Arab world does not permit anywhere near the same degree of foreign investment in their countries as do Western democracies.

Even more to the point no Arab nation would ever permit a messianic Christian entity to be housed anywhere within its confines - the mere possession of a single Bible in Saudi Arabia being an extremely serious offense.

That is why you will never see a Billy Graham Christian Fellowship Center in Cairo or the Jerry Falwell Praise Jesus University of Medina, Saudi Arabia.


It is such a ridiculous proposition that it has been internalized by the small minds in the State Department, the White House and legislative chambers as normal.

From that acceptance these people proceed upon the assumption that though the playing field is not level, that is perfectly ok with them.

Yet there is a spirit in America that does not accept the un-level playing field as normal. These people do not accept the fact that there should be two or multi sets of standards, some for Americans some for incredibly wealthy religious bigots pushing a fascistic creed.

These folks are the ones which constituted the core opposition to the port deal - they do not accept business as usual as defined by Clinton holdovers in the Department of State, or the Central Intelligence Agency.

These people are patriots - keepers of the flame of freedom - and for which they should be congratulated on a job well done.


©1999-2006, all rights reserved.

This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at