In response to the question of there being a “valid”
security concern over the recent purchase of U.S. ports by a
Dubai-based company, the answer is undoubtedly yes (Send Your
Thoughts, Feb. 23). The ports, by their nature, have always been
one of the most vulnerable methods of transporting foreign items
into the U.S.
However, it is no different than the concern when it was
previously owned by a British company, or the concern for other
ports along the U.S. coastline owned by foreign companies.
In spite of who manages the U.S. ports, it is still the U.S.
Coast Guard and U.S. security personnel in charge of screening the
cargo.
This situation is a unique one: Republicans and Democrats alike
seem to share the same feelings, appearing more united than during
President Bush’s State of the Union speech.
The message sent out is that as an American people, we are
united in being anti-Arab.
Bush’s foreign policy has been scrutinized ever since
2001, and he has shown the American people that he will go to great
lengths to “protect Americans from terrorist.” The
“safety of the American people” is his primary concern,
despite how much the financial deficit has increased ““ and we
like that. So why does everyone suddenly think this is such a big
safety issue?
I’ve heard the argument against the ownership change: Two
Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers came from the United Arab Emirates, money
transactions went through banks in the UAE, etc.
However, if we didn’t deal with countries that had
nationals commit “terrorist acts,” we would cut off
Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two of our big Middle Eastern allies. The
rationale just doesn’t add up.
And then on the other side, the UAE was a large provider of
relief aid for Hurricane Katrina and is a key Islamic,
predominately Arab ally in the Middle East.
Some of the protestors in the Muslim world have shown a certain
inability to distinguish between the publishers of the caricatures
and the United States, as seen by the burning of U.S. flags and
vandalizing of American businesses to protest alleged acts of
blasphemy by a Danish newspaper.
But the failure to acknowledge the heterogeneity within the
Western world should not be met with an anti-Muslim or Middle
Eastern sentiment on our part.
Two wrongs don’t make a right; I strongly believe that is
true the majority of the time.
In the post-caricature craze that has revamped an already
problematic relationship between the Middle East and the West, the
worst thing our nation could do is show we are suffering from
“Arab-phobia.”
Dubai is one of the flourishing cities in the world, showing
accomplishments many Westerners might not believe are possible in
an Islamic nation.
Dubai boasts the only seven-star hotel in the world,
construction and expansion of arguably the best airport in the
world, modern-looking towers, advanced means of transportation and
a beachfront of hotels with breathtaking beauty.
The city has set aside fundamentalist beliefs and pursued
innovation, business, and ““ more importantly ““ a
pluralist, tolerant perspective of visitors and foreigners.
Instead of assuming that the recent port deal is a possible
security liability, we should consider this a business deal that
shows signs of success for a flourishing city.
Everette is a fourth-year international development studies
student.