There are other reasons than racism driving the idea that the UAE might not be a safe foreign gov't-owned company to run our ports. The UAE recognized the Taliban in Afganistan (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060224/ ap_on_re_mi_ea/emirates_taliban). The UAE is boycotting Israel (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20060301-113324- 4242r.htm). The FBI tracked UAE financial ties to the 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorists; the UAE would not cooperate in efforts to track down Bin Laden's bank accounts; and they've been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/17/ports-uae/). True that the UAE has since supposedly cut their ties to the Taliban and frozen terrorist funding (http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/). But certainly, given the fact that Al Qaeda have long been working freely in the UAE, it is not inconceivable that some midlevel manager at DPW could be induced to vouch for certain members of that terrorist network. Almost unbelievably, the UAE deal as approved by the White House allowed virtually no oversight by the U.S.

These are the very good reasons I understand many people are aghast that the deal made it this far - not the fact that the company is middle-eastern or Muslim.
KO | 03.09.06 - 3:42 pm | #

P&O provide and operate 60% of all the fleet replenishment and auxilliary vessels for the Royal Australian Navy. They also provde ALL the icebreaker vessels for both the Australian and French Antartic mission as well as several marine science vessels for both nations.

Australia's right wing government is happy with the deal, having checked everything thouroughly. Ditto the French.

Regards, C
Cernig | Homepage | 03.09.06 - 5:38 pm | #