Tag Archives: Fujairah

It doesn’t happen that often, but the Middle East Eye left me with a question this morning. The headline ‘UAE ambassador’s firm linked to Bangladesh airports data deal’ was nothing strange. These things happen and if it helps Bangladesh, why worry? It was the setting of “Top diplomat’s business links to Emirati-backed project to upgrade passenger information systems prompt conflict of interest concerns”, it was the setting of “prompt conflict of interest concerns” made me wonder why there were conflicts of interests? Perhaps I am seeing the role of Ambassador incorrectly, perhaps I am simply thrown for a loop (I get an abundance of data every 24 hours), so it might be me. Yet when I see “An Emirati state-owned business appointed to set up a new passenger information system at Bangladeshi airports sub-contracted part of the project to a company co-owned by the UAE’s own ambassador to the country. Documents seen by Middle East Eye appear to raise questions about whether the arrangement delivers value for money for the Bangladeshi government or travelers facing higher prices as a consequence of inflated costs linked to the new system.” The first question that comes to mind is “Does the press get to see it all?” I reckon that perhaps the Bangladeshi media sees more (or perhaps a lot more) and as such, is there even an issue? You see, the term “value for money” tends to have ramifications, like how was this amount arrived at? Then we do get the goods in “Iftekhar Zaman, the executive director of Transparency International Bangladesh, called for an investigation into the deal, which he said appeared to amount to “a clear case of conflict of interests and an abuse of power”. Zaman told MEE: “As a public servant, an ambassador cannot be involved in any business activity without specific approval of the government.” OK, I can get along with this. The two settings that Iftekhar Zaman gives us are “an ambassador cannot be involved in any business activity without specific approval of the government” and “an abuse of power”. So first the abuse of power. The question becomes does any foreign ambassador have the ability to abuse power in any foreign country? I would state that this ambassador paints a rather nasty large target on his or her own back. An ambassador (as I see it) promotes his own country and offers stronger ties with that country (as an ambassador paints the picture why its own country is the best option). That is how I see it. As I personally see it, the ambassador is merely a pass through option for any Emirate business and as I am personally considering, the only stated ‘abuse’ would be to the business that Iftekhar Zaman prefers. As such that is the second setting. The first setting of “an ambassador cannot be involved in any business activity without specific approval of the government” this is a larger issue. In the first it is his involvement with the company he owns 34% of. As I see it the only issue is that other Emirati corporations might optionally be taken off the table. This is not on Bangladesh, but this might be on the table in the UAE (if this situation exists) and how many contenders were there for that position? American firms need to ‘scold’ their ambassador for letting this opportunity slip by as do the British, French and German corporations. So how many contenders were there? Aside from this setting was the Bangladeshi government involved? Did it need to be involved? If this is a logistic setting for a private airport, the government might not even be involved. All questions that the Middle East Eye had to lay out in this article. As for the “They also raise questions about a potential conflict of interest on the part of the UAE’s ambassador in Bangladesh, Abdulla Ali Alhmoudi, who has promoted closer ties between the aviation sectors in the two countries.” As such the job of an Ambassador is to promote its countries options and considerations that his (or her) nation has. As such Abdulla Ali Alhmoudi seems to be doing his job, that he owns 34% of that company is merely icing on the cake. And as the airport is concerned he brought a yummy cake to the attention of the airport. As such a “an investigation into the deal” seems one, but I ask you. Shouldn’t the executive director of Transparency International Bangladesh be involved? That is if this setting had to be on his desk to decide on. The fact that the airport hadn’t ‘involved’ him might require an answer, yet if the answer is that this was not his responsibility, is this case not merely a setting that gets limelight, the limelight that Iftekhar Zaman wants more spotlight? I am asking this as MEE didn’t give you “Iftekhar Zaman, the executive director of Transparency International Bangladesh, the organisation that is responsible for all information system at Bangladeshi airports” and MEE didn’t give anything on the vetting process, or who else was involved. I see a lot of questions and not much answers. And wouldn’t it be fun if the honorable Abdulla Ali Alhmoudi makes a claim for damages because of this article? There is no issue on freedom of the press. The article missed a few balls and ignored other balls and that has consequences in a lot of settings. You see, the setting of “The new passenger information system is being implemented in order to bring Bangladeshi airports in line with international standards requiring the collection of Advance Passenger Information (API) and Passenger Name Record (PNR) data.” The question is what was the competition? I don’t know but airports all have systems and several are national based, some have IBM systems and others have other systems. So what was the pool of contenders? Then we get “Alhmoudi was serving as the UAE’s charge d’affaires in Dhaka – the second-highest diplomatic post in the country – raising questions about whether he was already using his position to advance business interests.” Ehh, small question. Isn’t that his job as Ambassador? The setting of “advance business interests” should be seen as “advance Emirati business interests” and that is seemingly what he is doing. The only setting that could evolve is the setting that he didn’t advance business interests of OTHER Emirati corporations to promote the setting of Emirates Technology Solutions (Etek) based in Fujairah, a company that is Emirati state-owned. As such it seems like he was doing his job. As such there are questions but they would be pointed at MEE and optionally Iftekhar Zaman. Then we do get some other players, but there are also issues, but as I see it MEE is off the hook (as the expression goes) and we are left with “A CAAB official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the newspaper that the aviation authority planned to implement SITA through a company charging a “comparatively higher cost” than the ICAO recommendation of $3.50 per passenger, and raised concerns that the additional burden would fall on passengers, namely Bangladeshi labourers working abroad.” And there we have the setting “A CAAB official, speaking on condition of anonymity” yes, I have seen that setting before (in other   cases) and that tends to be someone who wants fame, or wants to promotes a third person, or that person wants to be seen as ‘in the know’, which gives us all matters of issues. There is another setting. You see “comparatively higher cost” is a loaded case. You see, when we have this setting we have two issues, the initial cost let’s say a initial million setting and a pass through cost. So if corporation one charges $125,000,000 and $4 per passenger and corporation two charges $15,000,000 and $5.50 per passenger the setting goes to how many passengers pass through this setting (these are fictive numbers) only if the airport has more than 110,000,000 passengers it becomes an actual issue, and that is a whole truckload of passengers. Then there are the service fees and maintenance costs of an IT system and we see none of that here. 

As such, why are these facts missing? Did the anonymous person not have this data? As such my question to MEE is” ‘Where are these missing facts?’ And that is the question I am confronted with. 

So do with this what you want and have a great day, my Sunday breakfast is now a mere 215 minutes away.