Opinions | Columnists
The stench of craftiness
Does New York Times have a logical explanation for printing a shocking and unfair editorial, calling on the Bush administration to reverse the decision that gives DP World control over P&O?
- By Rashid Saleh Al Oraimy, Special to Gulf News
- Published: 12:00 January 1, 2005
Even since Islamophobia became the active currency in the hands of US rightists, who invent a new bogus enemy every new day, the symptoms of such a syndrome (Islamophobia) have begun appearing in various segments in the West, whether open-minded or narrow-minded, liberal or fanatic.
Islamophobia is rising and has become like an infectious disease that spreads amidst political and media circles in the West. In its editorial on Thursday, February 16, The New York Times, which prides itself as the first newspaper that speaks of US liberalism, called on the US administration to reconsider the decision that gives Dubai Ports World control over London-based P&O, which operates the Port of New York, and other US ports.
The newspaper said the move would pose a danger to the US national security on the pretext that many of the September 11 hijackers and planners travelled through the UAE.
It also said the UAE banking system was used in preparing for the attacks. The newspaper has not been satisfied with this baseless allegation and also called on Bush administration to block the sale and prevent Dubai Ports World from obtaining its commercial rights due to terror-related reasons.
Discrepancy and bad faith in the editorial can come under the famous saying: "Explaining an obvious matter makes it more complicated."
Yet, the US banking system and even flight-training institutes and US airports are to be blamed as they hosted those terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks. The US is the country to be blamed since its security services, the strongest in the world, did not succeed in uncovering the plot and left the terrorists free until they struck the country.
Responsible
So, no country should be blamed or held responsible for the acts of terrorists, who managed to transfer money for financing their attacks.
Yet, if it is a must that a country should be blamed and held responsible, than no doubt the US is to be blamed.
The issue of acquiring the British company that operates US ports is a mere business matter and it has nothing to do with politics, and thus, it must be looked at within its true framework.
Worse, such a tricky means by The New York Times brings out the smell of incompetence for dubious commercial purposes.
If not, what is the logical explanation for printing a shocking and unfair editorial? Such an editorial comes within the context of incitement against a peaceful company operating under the umbrella of the law in the UAE and the US.
Does Dubai Ports World not practise its activities in the US, and other countries, in line with international and local laws followed in each country?
And, if the answer is yes, it means that objectivity and credibility will be the victims if a distinction is made. It will also deepen the already bleeding wounds of The New York Times and its reputation will be in the mud.
No one can forget the newspaper's recent scandal in which its journalist Judith Miller was arrested and prosecuted because she refused to give the names of her sources.
Where does The New York Times stand today? And where is the objective and fair media now?
Rashed Saleh Al Oraimi is a UAE-based columnist for Al Ittihad newspaper.
Share this article
More from Columnists
More from Opinions
Popular in Opinions
-
Opinions
Speak Your Mind: Cyberbullying
How can we protect our children from being Cyber bullied?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Mosque razing ruling exposes India polity
It would be tragic if those who demolished the Babri Masjid went scot-free
-
All eyes on Obama
Failure to outline an effective strategy at West Point could cost the US president not only victory in Afghanistan, but the White House itself
-
A year after 173 defenceless people were killed
Mumbai itself is far from safe from another deadly attack, even though the level of security consciousness of the average Mumbaikar has been raised since 26/11
