SHEHERAZADE, SOLOZZO AND THE BIG KHAN
By
Paul Schwartz
Last weekend in an interview on CNN, a spokeswoman for a company that is a front for the Dubai government described the sophisticated safety procedures in place at the port of Dubai. In a comforting tone, she told the story of her organization and urged Americans to remember that a deal that would put the firm in control of operations at six major American ports “is just for the sake of business.” Hearing this I couldn’t help but being reminded of a similar line uttered by Virgil “The Turk” Solozzo in “The Godfather” when he was planning to move in on the Corleone family empire. I remembered then that the best way to judge the value of any story is to lift the veil of its words and closely examine the characters.
It is safe to say we live in an age when assurances about the benign nature of business and business ethics have lost much of their meaning. Nobody knows this better than those who sit in the U.S. Congress. The uproar surrounding the revelation that the Bush administration was set to approve the ports deal has created a bi-partisan stand against the president unprecedented in recent history. Public trust had already been diminishing in an administration that has demonstrated gross incompetence in its ability to carry out critical responsibilities of office. The public unraveling of the ports story, however, has left even its most loyal political allies scratching their heads in disbelief.
The Bush presidency has been sustained in large part through the skillful manipulation of public fears about terrorism. Now the monster may be turning on its creator as public judgement is pronounced on Dubai’s duplicity in its past dealings with terrorists and smugglers. After six years in office, the administration is watching its poll numbers plummet and GOP lawmakers are starting to run for the exits. It appears that the American public is beginning at last to ask some tough questions about the standards to which its current leaders should be held. The ports story has helped promote the image of a White House seriously adrift, unable to manage the complexities of foreign and domestic policy, at odds with both liberals and conservatives and now appearing to place concerns of commerce over the needs of national security.
The more I thought about it, the story of the courting of our ports by Dubai Inc. seemed like some twisted version of Sheherazade – a tale of a thousand and one different ways to define responsibility, accountability, reliability and deniability. In spite of the obvious uneasiness Americans may feel about Arab royalty controlling operations at key port terminals, what has incensed many in Congress is not merely the ethnicity of the suitor. Rather it is the process through which the entire transaction seemed to be foisted on the American people without their consent and the administration’s willingness to casually overlook Dubai’s dubious past. Never mind that the inter-agency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) says it studied the issue for a month. Nothing was out in the open. The ports deal was a done deal.
At a time when the Bush White House has had to confront charges of secrecy and of sidestepping laws that it deems inconvenient, the apparent attempt to ram through such a sensitive transaction without the congressional oversight mandated by CFIUS regulations had the unpleasant aroma of an old-fashioned backroom deal. Immediately, one could detect the brewing of a political nightmare. With noted Republicans like Randy Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Bill Frist and others already in the spotlight for ethics violations, an administration found to be engaging in financial dalliances with Middle Eastern potentates would be a serious liability for the Republican Party.
Suspicions on Capitol Hill grew when the White House claimed the president and his cabinet knew nothing about the deal, yet Mr. Bush was instantly ready to threaten his Republican Congress with the first veto of his presidency if they didn’t roll over and rubberstamp the sale. While adamant denials of policy errors have been the coin of the realm at the White House lately, the possibility that President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Treasury Secretary Snow had no knowledge of a transaction bearing such obvious political liabilities stands as a devastating indictment of the administration. One could easily imagine Republican Party officials beginning to cringe at the thought that Mr. Bush’s ardent support of the Dubai deal might have voters wondering along with Michael Moore whether the President of the United States truly works for them or for a group of princes from the Persian Gulf.
The worst part of this story for President Bush, however, may be yet to come. Now that Dubai Ports World has been gracious enough to step back and allow a Congressional investigation to proceed, the inquiry will begin to reveal important details of the emirate’s alleged connections to international terrorism and illegal nuclear technology shipments. Impassioned congressional representatives imbued with the outrage of their constituents will be considering the following simple question: should the governing authorities in Dubai be granted the rights to oversee management of American ports or not? A more courageous question would be: should the governing authorities in Dubai be granted the rights to oversee management of American ports or should they be sanctioned for complicity in nuclear smuggling and for breaking U.S. laws?
Since news of the ports deal broke in the media, much of the relevant public discussion has centered on the wisdom of ceding operational control of American ports to foreign entities in a time of terrorism. Concerns surrounding Dubai’s record as a transit hub and laundry for the balance sheets of Al Qaeda operatives has elicited understandable anger. Yet, while attention is focused on the reliability of Dubai Ports World to stop terrorism from targeting American ports, less is being said about the actual legal culpability of Dubai in the A.Q. Khan affair. The renegade Pakistani scientist’s nuclear smuggling operation - carried on right under the noses of Dubai Inc.’s managers - may prove to be one of the most dangerous criminal acts for the future security of the United States and the world as a whole. It could also provide a legal framework for undoing the ports deal.
Working from plans he lifted from European government labs in the 1970’s, Khan developed Pakistan’s nuclear bomb. He then enriched himself by creating a black market network that transferred nuclear secrets and centrifuge parts to Iran, North Korea, Libya and possibly to others as well. Khan and his chief of operations, B.S.A. Tahir, a Sri Lankin living in Dubai, set up shop in the emirate using several front organizations to ship his goods around the globe from 1989 through 2004.
The international laws broken by A.Q. Khan would also apply to his manufacturers in Malaysia, his suppliers and middlemen in Europe, as well as his shippers and bankers in Dubai. American laws including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Acts of 1978 and 1994 (section 824) clearly prohibit financial institutions and individuals involved with them, whether domestic or foreign, from assisting nuclear proliferation through the provision of financing. Sanctions for such activities include “a ban on pursuing, directly or indirectly new commerce in the United States” and “a ban conducting business from a new location in the United States.”
If these laws were applied, Congress could have a legal basis for terminating the Dubai deal. Most of these regulations, however, explicitly state that those charged under the laws need to have “willfully aided or abetted” in the crime. Dubai, of course, has denied that it had any knowledge of what Dr. Khan was doing in its front yard. Though some international security experts have questioned the proposition that a person as prominent as A.Q. Khan could have carried on his activities in the UAE or Pakistan without someone in authority approving or at least knowing about it, such involvement would be hard to prove.
A.Q. Khan has never been held accountable for his crimes. He became a hero in Pakistan when news of his nefarious network was reveled. He calmly admitted his deeds on national television and promptly received a full pardon from Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharref. As one of several apparent concessions granted Musharref in return for his help in finding Osama Bin Laden, President Bush has never pressured Pakistan to turn Dr. Khan over to authorities or allow U.S. investigators to interrogate him. Whether this is another strategic blunder by the White House or a deliberate attempt to keep Khan quiet is unknown. Did A.Q. Khan have clients in addition to those he admitted to and has the network he built completely ceased to function? An examination of the doctor could uncover leads on these critical questions and help establish if there is any evidence that Dubai’s authorities had knowledge of the black market operation. Since Musharref hasn’t delivered on Bin Laden, Congress might consider demanding access to Khan in order to question him on these matters.
The key point to remember is that the port of Dubai, where Dr. Khan’s activities took place, is not controlled by a foreign shipping firm, but by the government of Dubai. If Dubai knew about Dr. Khan, it is guilty of aiding and abetting in a grave international crime. If not, it deserves to be disqualified as reliable managers of American container port operations because it was incapable of finding out what Dr. Khan was hiding in his containers while they were under Dubai’s control. If Dubai Ports World didn’t know what was going on in their own port, one might reasonably ask why anyone would want to hire them to manage theirs.
The law provides the President of the United States with the final word in this matter. George W. Bush, now in his last term, will no longer be politically accountable to the American people for his decisions and the question about whom he really works for may never be resolved to the satisfaction of many. In this windswept romance of international commerce, it is important to remember that The United States has had a long and intimate relationship with the inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula. In spite of the not-so-veiled warnings from supporters of the Dubai deal that quashing the transaction will seriously damage the appeal the U.S. has for foreign investors, the actual impact will not be lasting. Saudi investments in the U.S. alone have been estimated at over $800 billion and the sheiks don’t seem to be seriously entertaining ideas of withdrawal... yet. In this particular tale, America is simply too attractive a market for foreign suitors. Ultimately, Dubai Inc. and the Bush administration may have to accept that, even though Americans are often more than willing to get engaged “just for the sake of business,” the idea of offering our ports as a dowry appears to rub certain people the wrong way.
By
Paul Schwartz
Last weekend in an interview on CNN, a spokeswoman for a company that is a front for the Dubai government described the sophisticated safety procedures in place at the port of Dubai. In a comforting tone, she told the story of her organization and urged Americans to remember that a deal that would put the firm in control of operations at six major American ports “is just for the sake of business.” Hearing this I couldn’t help but being reminded of a similar line uttered by Virgil “The Turk” Solozzo in “The Godfather” when he was planning to move in on the Corleone family empire. I remembered then that the best way to judge the value of any story is to lift the veil of its words and closely examine the characters.
It is safe to say we live in an age when assurances about the benign nature of business and business ethics have lost much of their meaning. Nobody knows this better than those who sit in the U.S. Congress. The uproar surrounding the revelation that the Bush administration was set to approve the ports deal has created a bi-partisan stand against the president unprecedented in recent history. Public trust had already been diminishing in an administration that has demonstrated gross incompetence in its ability to carry out critical responsibilities of office. The public unraveling of the ports story, however, has left even its most loyal political allies scratching their heads in disbelief.
The Bush presidency has been sustained in large part through the skillful manipulation of public fears about terrorism. Now the monster may be turning on its creator as public judgement is pronounced on Dubai’s duplicity in its past dealings with terrorists and smugglers. After six years in office, the administration is watching its poll numbers plummet and GOP lawmakers are starting to run for the exits. It appears that the American public is beginning at last to ask some tough questions about the standards to which its current leaders should be held. The ports story has helped promote the image of a White House seriously adrift, unable to manage the complexities of foreign and domestic policy, at odds with both liberals and conservatives and now appearing to place concerns of commerce over the needs of national security.
The more I thought about it, the story of the courting of our ports by Dubai Inc. seemed like some twisted version of Sheherazade – a tale of a thousand and one different ways to define responsibility, accountability, reliability and deniability. In spite of the obvious uneasiness Americans may feel about Arab royalty controlling operations at key port terminals, what has incensed many in Congress is not merely the ethnicity of the suitor. Rather it is the process through which the entire transaction seemed to be foisted on the American people without their consent and the administration’s willingness to casually overlook Dubai’s dubious past. Never mind that the inter-agency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) says it studied the issue for a month. Nothing was out in the open. The ports deal was a done deal.
At a time when the Bush White House has had to confront charges of secrecy and of sidestepping laws that it deems inconvenient, the apparent attempt to ram through such a sensitive transaction without the congressional oversight mandated by CFIUS regulations had the unpleasant aroma of an old-fashioned backroom deal. Immediately, one could detect the brewing of a political nightmare. With noted Republicans like Randy Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Bill Frist and others already in the spotlight for ethics violations, an administration found to be engaging in financial dalliances with Middle Eastern potentates would be a serious liability for the Republican Party.
Suspicions on Capitol Hill grew when the White House claimed the president and his cabinet knew nothing about the deal, yet Mr. Bush was instantly ready to threaten his Republican Congress with the first veto of his presidency if they didn’t roll over and rubberstamp the sale. While adamant denials of policy errors have been the coin of the realm at the White House lately, the possibility that President Bush, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Treasury Secretary Snow had no knowledge of a transaction bearing such obvious political liabilities stands as a devastating indictment of the administration. One could easily imagine Republican Party officials beginning to cringe at the thought that Mr. Bush’s ardent support of the Dubai deal might have voters wondering along with Michael Moore whether the President of the United States truly works for them or for a group of princes from the Persian Gulf.
The worst part of this story for President Bush, however, may be yet to come. Now that Dubai Ports World has been gracious enough to step back and allow a Congressional investigation to proceed, the inquiry will begin to reveal important details of the emirate’s alleged connections to international terrorism and illegal nuclear technology shipments. Impassioned congressional representatives imbued with the outrage of their constituents will be considering the following simple question: should the governing authorities in Dubai be granted the rights to oversee management of American ports or not? A more courageous question would be: should the governing authorities in Dubai be granted the rights to oversee management of American ports or should they be sanctioned for complicity in nuclear smuggling and for breaking U.S. laws?
Since news of the ports deal broke in the media, much of the relevant public discussion has centered on the wisdom of ceding operational control of American ports to foreign entities in a time of terrorism. Concerns surrounding Dubai’s record as a transit hub and laundry for the balance sheets of Al Qaeda operatives has elicited understandable anger. Yet, while attention is focused on the reliability of Dubai Ports World to stop terrorism from targeting American ports, less is being said about the actual legal culpability of Dubai in the A.Q. Khan affair. The renegade Pakistani scientist’s nuclear smuggling operation - carried on right under the noses of Dubai Inc.’s managers - may prove to be one of the most dangerous criminal acts for the future security of the United States and the world as a whole. It could also provide a legal framework for undoing the ports deal.
Working from plans he lifted from European government labs in the 1970’s, Khan developed Pakistan’s nuclear bomb. He then enriched himself by creating a black market network that transferred nuclear secrets and centrifuge parts to Iran, North Korea, Libya and possibly to others as well. Khan and his chief of operations, B.S.A. Tahir, a Sri Lankin living in Dubai, set up shop in the emirate using several front organizations to ship his goods around the globe from 1989 through 2004.
The international laws broken by A.Q. Khan would also apply to his manufacturers in Malaysia, his suppliers and middlemen in Europe, as well as his shippers and bankers in Dubai. American laws including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Acts of 1978 and 1994 (section 824) clearly prohibit financial institutions and individuals involved with them, whether domestic or foreign, from assisting nuclear proliferation through the provision of financing. Sanctions for such activities include “a ban on pursuing, directly or indirectly new commerce in the United States” and “a ban conducting business from a new location in the United States.”
If these laws were applied, Congress could have a legal basis for terminating the Dubai deal. Most of these regulations, however, explicitly state that those charged under the laws need to have “willfully aided or abetted” in the crime. Dubai, of course, has denied that it had any knowledge of what Dr. Khan was doing in its front yard. Though some international security experts have questioned the proposition that a person as prominent as A.Q. Khan could have carried on his activities in the UAE or Pakistan without someone in authority approving or at least knowing about it, such involvement would be hard to prove.
A.Q. Khan has never been held accountable for his crimes. He became a hero in Pakistan when news of his nefarious network was reveled. He calmly admitted his deeds on national television and promptly received a full pardon from Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharref. As one of several apparent concessions granted Musharref in return for his help in finding Osama Bin Laden, President Bush has never pressured Pakistan to turn Dr. Khan over to authorities or allow U.S. investigators to interrogate him. Whether this is another strategic blunder by the White House or a deliberate attempt to keep Khan quiet is unknown. Did A.Q. Khan have clients in addition to those he admitted to and has the network he built completely ceased to function? An examination of the doctor could uncover leads on these critical questions and help establish if there is any evidence that Dubai’s authorities had knowledge of the black market operation. Since Musharref hasn’t delivered on Bin Laden, Congress might consider demanding access to Khan in order to question him on these matters.
The key point to remember is that the port of Dubai, where Dr. Khan’s activities took place, is not controlled by a foreign shipping firm, but by the government of Dubai. If Dubai knew about Dr. Khan, it is guilty of aiding and abetting in a grave international crime. If not, it deserves to be disqualified as reliable managers of American container port operations because it was incapable of finding out what Dr. Khan was hiding in his containers while they were under Dubai’s control. If Dubai Ports World didn’t know what was going on in their own port, one might reasonably ask why anyone would want to hire them to manage theirs.
The law provides the President of the United States with the final word in this matter. George W. Bush, now in his last term, will no longer be politically accountable to the American people for his decisions and the question about whom he really works for may never be resolved to the satisfaction of many. In this windswept romance of international commerce, it is important to remember that The United States has had a long and intimate relationship with the inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula. In spite of the not-so-veiled warnings from supporters of the Dubai deal that quashing the transaction will seriously damage the appeal the U.S. has for foreign investors, the actual impact will not be lasting. Saudi investments in the U.S. alone have been estimated at over $800 billion and the sheiks don’t seem to be seriously entertaining ideas of withdrawal... yet. In this particular tale, America is simply too attractive a market for foreign suitors. Ultimately, Dubai Inc. and the Bush administration may have to accept that, even though Americans are often more than willing to get engaged “just for the sake of business,” the idea of offering our ports as a dowry appears to rub certain people the wrong way.
Comments