<p>Yes, I think FF has it right…the “usual suspects” are informing themselves before fulminating. What a concept. Try it some time.</p>
<p>My initial take is that this probably not bad policy, but a political impossibility. What was initially reported as being “the sale of US ports to the UAE” has morphed into the “outsourcing of port security to the UAE” to: “A British company, which once held a management concession in 6 US ports has been purchased by a company based in Dubai. Ownership and security responibilities remain in US hands, as has always been the case.”</p>
<p>I tend to think that the Administration is being so dogged about this because the UAE has been very co-operative in the GWOT. We have several military bases there, and the fact that a few of the 9/11 terrorists came from there doesn’t mean that the government supported them, any more than the government of Egypt supports the Muslim Brotherhood, or the Saudi government supports OBM. It’s a very tough political sell, however.</p>
<p>Overseas, it’s an excellent question, especially considering that the 9/11 hijackers were trained to fly planes in U.S. flight schools, permitted to board U.S. owned aircraft by (presumably) U.S. citizen employees of those airline companies, laundered their money through U.S. banks, etc.</p>
<p>NPR had a much more balanced report on this today. Did you know that China controls many port terminals in the US? Most terminals in the US are operated by foreign firms. The ports are still owned by the local or state agencies that actually control them. All security is US controlled.</p>
<p>There is little better for the US than foreign investment. It brings new money into the economy and frees up US equity for new investments which keeps the US moving ahead economically. Economic isolationism is the recipe for economic stagnation.</p>
<p>To make a simple local example Boeing and Microsoft are examples of basic industries that bring in money from outside the local economy. That money is far more important in the local economy than the money a little restaurant catering to locals brings in. Every $ of outside money creates about 2.5 dollars in the local economy.</p>
<p>He didn’t have to; his friends had already taken care of it. Why SHOULDN’T the U.S. be for sale to the highest bidder? I think we should start with naming rights. Why should my state be named after a toothless old guy who didn’t even know the place existed, when for a couple of bil. we could be called “MicroState”? ;)</p>
<p>Certainly.
Mini, the biggest threat to the US would be the removal of the massive foreign investment here. Why not get serious about it and stop the silliness? It is beneath you.</p>
<p>Why not? We already uphold the principle of $1/one vote. Federal courts have already ruled that local communities do not have the power to decide which companies they want and do not want in their communities, regardless of how they might vote. Folks say instead that if you don’t want a local company in the community, don’t buy there. If you don’t have any money, it doesn’t matter, does it? $1/one vote.</p>
<p>Why exactly should I care whether a UAE company has major offices (and votes) in the U.S. as opposed to an Arkansas company with its international office in Ghangzhou?</p>
<p>Quite right - the biggest threat to the U.S. would be 1) removal of foreign investment in the U.S.; and 2) shut off of the oil supply. But I don’t quite know why we insist on calling it “foreign”, as if without them I would be spending my time hobknobbing with the Waltons. Why do you think we disagree?</p>
<p>Oh that is too bad! What really makes me wonder is the IHT isn’t really covering this at all. I checked yesterday’s paper and the online version today. No commentary at all. I think it is one of those wink and nod deals and stuff under the counter. You help us there, we help you here. “They” tried to pass it through and didn’t follow regulation and didn’t contact the congress. Sounds as if they didn’t even contact the President. (Or he is just trying to stay out of it now) Great. Who is running the show? Who is “they”?</p>
<p>It was already owned by another foreign based company (British) so it was a sale from one offshore firm to another. As the impact on daily operations of the ports is negligible, most did not see it as a big problem. You know foreign based airlines fly into US cities every day; there is far more danger from these (which is minimal) than from the fact that about 80% of the port terminals are operated by offshore companies from China to the Dutch. The actual port grounds, etc. are all owned by the cities and such where they are located.</p>
<p>The UAE is one of our allies in the Arab world. Here is what the U.S. State Department says about our ties with that country:</p>
<p>U.S.-U.A.E. RELATIONS
The United States has enjoyed friendly relations with the U.A.E. since 1971. Private commercial ties, especially in petroleum, have developed into friendly government-to-government ties which include security assistance. The breadth, depth, and quality of U.S.-U.A.E. relations increased dramatically as a result of the U.S.-led coalition’s campaign to end the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. In 2002, the U.S. and the U.A.E. launched a strategic partnership dialogue covering virtually every aspect of the relationship. The U.A.E. has been a key partner in the war on terror after September 11, 2001. The United States was the third country to establish formal diplomatic relations with the U.A.E. and has had an ambassador resident in the U.A.E. since 1974.</p>
<p>and the National Review
<a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200602220830.asp[/url]”>http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200602220830.asp</a> Some, like my friends at the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, take a libertarian view: The deal makes business sense and, hey, security is the U.S. government’s job, not the company’s. The truth of the matter is that the job of performing port security is already problematic; an arrangement that affords opportunities to put personnel and cargo in positions where they can do us harm and involves reading people into the government’s port-security plans who may not be on our side amounts to what the lawyers call an “attractive nuisance.” These are opportunities that are not likely to be passed up by terrorists who have operated from the UAE in the past.</p>
<p>What I really like about the UAE is their political system. None of that messy democracy stuff that could threaten their or our national security, or opposition saying treasonous stuff. 60% of the population is made up of non-nationals, but it doesn’t matter, because the remaining 40% of the population doesn’t get to vote either. They don’t discriminate against women - men can’t vote either. </p>
<p>The quality of our relationship with the UAE is great! We like our friends that way. Now if only we could institute such a system here.</p>
<p>There is also an element of sourgrapes from the losers in the bidding war for the purchase of the port rights. From the WSJ:</p>
<p>“The timing of this sudden uproar is also a tad suspicious. A bidding war for the British-owned P&O has been going on since last autumn, and the P&O board accepted Dubai’s latest offer last month. The story only blew up last week, as a Florida firm that is a partner with P&O in Miami, Continental Stevedoring and Terminals Inc., filed a suit to block the purchase. Miami’s mayor also sent a letter of protest to Mr. Bush. It wouldn’t be the first time if certain politicians were acting here on behalf of private American commercial interests.
Critics also forget, or conveniently ignore, that the UAE government has been among the most helpful Arab countries in the war on terror. It was one of the first countries to join the U.S. container security initiative, which seeks to inspect cargo in foreign ports. The UAE has assisted in training security forces in Iraq, and at home it has worked hard to stem terrorist financing and WMD proliferation. UAE leaders are as much an al Qaeda target as Tony Blair.”</p>
<p>Too true. There’s just no reason why we just be going to war in Iraq to “restore democracy” when pc would demand we respect the right of extended royal families to control their destiny without it, and ours too. I mean, if there were free and fair elections, we might have to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood, or worse! It’s nice to see you being so pc about it.</p>
<p>It’s just one big happy family - their family making deals with our family. A business handshake, and it’s a done deal. In the immortal words of Disney, “There’s a great big beautiful tomorrow/Shining at the end of every road.” ;)</p>
<p>Just thinking…Let the individual ports decide to keep the contract going or change it. Give them the time to look it all over. Seems like a good way to handle this. (Sorry but what does the President have to do deciding who runs Balitmore’s port?) If they want, let the ports use the courts.</p>
<p>Some light and facts. Iraq has nothing to do with the issue at hand. But I’d rather have 100,000,000 Chinese busy making clothes for Wal-Mart than cooking up ideas about how nice it would be to conquer the US or Japan. </p>