Which Dubai You Be? (The Hidden Friedman)

When it came to the Dubai ports issue, the facts never really had a chance — not in this political season. Still, it's hard to imagine a more ignorant, bogus, xenophobic, reckless debate than the one indulged in by both Republicans and Democrats around this question of whether an Arab-owned company might oversee loading and unloading services in some U.S. ports. If you had any doubts before, have none now: 9/11 has made us stupid.

So begins Tom Friedman's Wednesday column, Dubai and Dunces (fully available to Times Select subscribers), which continues to rehash the scuppered Dubai Ports World deal.

The real problem was recently spelled out by an Arab-American psychiatrist, Dr. Wafa Sultan, in a stunning interview with Al Jazeera. Speaking about the Arab-Muslim world, Dr. Sultan said: "The clash we are witnessing ... is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on the other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings."

The Al Jazeera host then asked: "I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?"

Dr. Sultan: "Yes, that is what I mean."

[...]

Dubai is not a democracy, and it is not without warts. But it is a bridge of decency that leads away from the failing civilization described by Dr. Sultan to a much more optimistic, open and self-confident society. Dubaians are building a future based on butter not guns, private property not caprice, services more than oil, and globally competitive companies, not terror networks. Dubai is about nurturing Arab dignity through success not suicide. As a result, its people want to embrace the future, not blow it up.

What's ironic is that if Democrats who hate the Bush war in Iraq actually had a peaceful alternative policy for promoting transformation in the Arab-Muslim world, it would be called "the Dubai policy": supporting internally driven Arab engines of change.

That's why Arab progressives are stunned by our behavior. As an Arab businessman friend said to me of the Dubai saga: "This deal has left a real bad taste in many mouths. I mean this was Dubai, for God's sake! You could not have a better friend and more of a symbol of globalization and openness. If they are a security danger to the U.S., then who is not?"

So whatever happens with the Iraq experiment — but especially if it fails — we need Dubai to succeed. Dubai is where we should want the Arab world to go. Unfortunately, we just told Dubai to go to hell.

On the flip, we have a complementary commentary from James Zogby of the Arab American Institute (not of Zogby polling)...

: : : : : : : : : :

...from this opinion piece published today over at TomPaine.com, which looks at how this simmering brew bubbled up:

White House advisor Karl Rove fired the opening round, when at a winter meeting of the Republican Party, he made it clear that in November 2006, Republicans would again play the trump card of “national security,” to retain control of the Senate and House.

Democrats, wary of this ploy, which cost them victories in 2002 and 2004, found in the Dubai Ports World (DPW) story an issue which would provide them with a weapon to “out-Rove Rove.” They had tried for years, but failed, to successfully challenge the White House on the issue of port security. DPW provided them with an Arab target to shoot at, and shoot they did. The rhetoric was harsh and false, distorted and exaggerated. But, because it was an Arab country, they found a believing public and no serious debate was required.

For its part, the White House failed to respond early on, and by the time they issued their talking points rebuttals about the “U.S.-UAE relationship,” and the “role of the UAE in the war on terror,” it was too late. The negative stories, though false, had come to be believed and became a part of accepted discourse.