New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | February 24, 2006

Blogger Kenton Kelly dissects the tempest-in-a-blogspot over the port management contract with the United Arab Emirates.

Comments

|2.24.06 @ 12:51PM|#

Good for Kenton Kelly. What has struck me most about this port storm is how instantly people, especially elected officials, have condemned this without any time at all to analyze exactly why they are opposed. Their visceral opposition has a real ugly smell to it.

To the extent we (the US) decide to engage the world, and try to create a situation where terrorists aren't incubated by lousy economic systems or other problems at home, it behooves us to help the economies of Muslim countries.

By the way, the Dubai company in country is buying from a Britsh company. The Brits have brought us Richard Reid, aka the shoe bomber. They have also shown other problems with home grown terrorism, both recently in the subway bombings, but over the past few decades as well. Terrorists, including Islamic Fascists, come from all kinds of countries, not just Arab countries.

|2.24.06 @ 12:54PM|#

I'm a little disappointed that Kenton did not include some of H&R's very own foaming-at-the-mouth rants. There were some real doosies here as well.

KipEsquire|2.24.06 @ 12:57PM|#

"In the rush to judgment, few bloggers have bothered to discuss who actually 'runs' ports."

But by the same token, neither is anyone discussing the UAE's dismal human rights record, which is at least as bad as, if not worse than, Saudi Arabia's.

How many brutal dictators did we give a bye to because they "were an ally in the Cold War"? To simply parrot "they're an ally in the War on Terror" is the same kind of myopia and will result in the same kind of misery throughout the world. And, in the end, it will bite us in the rear just as our Cold War "alliances" are doing now.

The reason we shouldn't be doing port business with the UAE government is because we shouldn't be doing ANY business with the UAE government.

rox_publius|2.24.06 @ 1:00PM|#

The reason we shouldn't be doing port business with the UAE government is because we shouldn't be doing ANY business with the UAE government.

because economically isolating those we oppose works so well to being about desired changes. like it has in north korea, cuba, and pre-war iraq.

|2.24.06 @ 1:10PM|#

"But by the same token, neither is anyone discussing the UAE's dismal human rights record, which is at least as bad as, if not worse than, Saudi Arabia's."

The UAE is not a liberal democracy, but please, rhetorically, stay on Earth.

|2.24.06 @ 1:23PM|#

Once again, as I have every time another one of these fiascos occurs, I wonder why the Bush administration isn't getting huge negative marks for incompetence. Uh, wasn't there anyone in the administration that thought perhaps some "advance work" with Congress might be helpful to minimize the somewhat obvious PR risks involved with this decision, even if it was the right one? I realize the negotiation was secret, but once the decision was made, somebody should have been working on how to sell it to the public so we don't end up with a diplomatic disaster. I don't understand why these guys keep getting a free pass every time there is a screw up in the Executive Branch, such as a leak (NSA surveillance) that is arguably damaging to our national security interests, regardless of the legal merits of what they were or weren't doing. Or do we just assume that the President really isn't responsible for any of his supposed "employees"?

|2.24.06 @ 1:38PM|#

So let me get this straight....

Democracy is important enough to invade and kill for, but not important enough simply pressure a country ecomonically for.
If you ask me, Bush's attitude about this brings the hypocracy of this "War on Terror" full circle.

|2.24.06 @ 1:48PM|#

I agree with the thrust of the article, although I'm not as sure as Kenton seems to be that it's all about folks of all political stripes saying "Arabs bad." I mean, there certainly are those mouth-breathers, but I think there are also just a lot of political bomb-throwers here who see this as an opportunity to say "Bush bad." Instead of simple prejudice, they are loudly questioning the trustworthiness of moderate Arabs in order to score points.

|2.24.06 @ 2:21PM|#

Shouldn't the arguement againt this be that it's a state ownned company ( and probably subsidized ), not which state owns it?

|2.24.06 @ 2:21PM|#

Ron,
Apparently Bush didn't even know the deal was going down until he heard about it on the news.

|2.24.06 @ 2:31PM|#

From an AP story:
The White House noted the United Arab Emirates contributed $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina just weeks before Dubai Ports sought approval for its business deal. It said the money was nearly four times as much as the administration received from all other countries combined, and said there was no connection between the money and the pending deal.

Just thinking out loud here, but I wonder if the recipients of that largesse would refuse it if they knew where it came from? How principled are the anti-UAE crowd?

|2.24.06 @ 2:39PM|#

I was trying to understand how the Bush administration could have casually dropped a stink bomb like this, and then it occurred to me that since Bush isn't running for reelection, yet needs a congressional majorities to keep his incompetent and corrupt ass out of trouble, why not let them distance from him and at the same assert their security creds, by giving them some obvious disagreement fodder.

They win, and he gets to stay out of the pokey. So what if his 39 drops to 35? At least he won't be sharing a cell with Ben Dover (sorry Fletch!).

VM (as far as you know)|2.24.06 @ 2:43PM|#

Ben... [I'm] victor Hugo. nice to meet you.

|2.24.06 @ 2:49PM|#

Bill: Actually, whether Bush knew anything or not is pretty much irrelevant, since he doesn't do or say anything unless the people with their hands in his back wiggle their fingers.

|2.24.06 @ 2:51PM|#

In regard to the H&R rants, I was a bit surprised that many otherwise erstwhile posters seem to rush to discredit the possibility that stereotyping and racial animus had even a bit hand in the reaction. Clearly, the PR job by the Bushies was inadequate, and UAE has a ways to go to become democratic utopia. But Dubai is as open a free-market as exists in the ME, and has been dubbed the Arab Las Vegas. We aren't talking about Mecca here folks, with beheadings on the hour.

Fun fact: the world's only "7 star" hotel, Bourj-el-Arab (www.travelindubai.com/burj-al-arab/english.htm), is in Dubai, although my uncle stayed there and said the service was lacking.

Fun Fact #2: I'm no lawyer, but I do believe shooting me is a violation of my rights.

|2.24.06 @ 3:07PM|#

I haven't read all I could on this issue... But why would anyone expect that the highest levels of the administration would or should be aware of this change of ownership?

All the legwork and vetting is going to be done by underundersecretaries and civil servants underneath the Committee on Foreign Investments. Only if a problem is found there would it bubble up to a cabinet level office.

Or do you people really think that the President personally approves every issue of foreign ownership of everything in the country?

|2.24.06 @ 3:13PM|#

The fact that this move is SO counterintuitive makes me think it'll turn out fine. Why would Bush (or the administration, if he didn't know about it) ever agree to something so stupid SOUNDING if it wasn't virtually fail safe.

|2.24.06 @ 3:51PM|#

It said the money was nearly four times as much as the administration received from all other countries combined, and said there was no connection between the money and the pending deal.

That doesn't sound suspicious at all.

because economically isolating those we oppose works so well to being about desired changes.

A case can be made for not doing business with an oppressive government on moral grounds while not harboring any illusions that it will bring about any desired changes. Doesn't seem to happen very often, though.

|2.24.06 @ 4:09PM|#

It should be noted that the China's state-owned COSCO operates a (larger) cargo terminal at the same Port of New York/New Jersey site as P&O. Given that COSCO is state-owned, China is non-democratic and has a less than stellar human rights record, I would simply ask why nobody cares. Oh, I'd also ask why China represents less of a security threat than U.A.E. at our ports.

|2.24.06 @ 4:18PM|#

Given that COSCO is state-owned, China is non-democratic and has a less than stellar human rights record, I would simply ask why nobody cares.

$$

|2.24.06 @ 4:38PM|#

Given that COSCO is state-owned, China is non-democratic and has a less than stellar human rights record, I would simply ask why nobody cares.

On yesterday's thread for this topic, I noted that the last time Congress reacted like this was over the proposed purchase of Unocal by a company owned by the Chinese government.

So I would suggest that the reason nobody cares is that, at the time of the COSCO purchase, Congress had yet to recognize the demagogic goldmine of such protectionist stances.

|2.24.06 @ 5:19PM|#

Given that COSCO is state-owned, China is non-democratic and has a less than stellar human rights record, I would simply ask why nobody cares.

because dubai doesn't own all of our mortgages, debts, and dollars. they're not our most favored nation or bestest business friend in the whold world or whatever we call it.

Rhywun's answer sums it up perfectly.

|2.24.06 @ 5:52PM|#

Rhywun's answer sums it up perfectly.

Why then did we see the identical reaction when our "bestest business friend" wanted to invest some of "all of our dollars" in Unocal?

johnkonop|2.25.06 @ 3:49PM|#

White House and Congress Trade Away American Security



The United Arab Emirates ports management deal finally exposes our economic and trade policies for what they are: a government's pursuit of money (for a select few) over the interests of most Americans.



The ports management deal is not an isolated mistake. Far worse has happened, but perhaps nothing as nakedly blatant. For example, how does it benefit Americans when:



Drug companies are allowed to write a new Medicare prescription drug benefit that keeps prices artificially high for seniors by forbidding government-negotiated prices based on volume?
The American-funded Import/Export Bank subsidizes Chinese nuclear power development? Is it possible we are not sending enough money to Communist China?
Congress has repeatedly neglected our national and economic security:



The majority of our oil comes from abroad, much of that from countries with unstable, unfriendly populations
The majority of our computer equipment is manufactured overseas
The majority of our food in imported from foreign countries
Over two-thirds of the products sold in major retailers is imported from countries like Communist China and Mexico
Our soaring budget deficit leaves deeply indebted to foreign countries like Communist China, to whom we owe $1 trillion
Illegal immigration is accepted�and legal immigration is abused�to secure cheap labor (exposing us to unknown security risks)
Congress sees the results of these unhealthy dependencies (declining American wages, record trade and budget deficits, national security vulnerabilities) and just pours fuel on the fire. It passed CAFTA after NAFTA. It refused to crack down on widespread illegal Chinese trade practices by threatening to withdraw from the World Trade Organization (WTO).



Most in Congress have demonstrated that they will not change course; they are simply too indebted to big-money campaign donors and lobbyists. We must replace them.

|2.25.06 @ 5:14PM|#

To the extent we (the US) decide to engage the world, and try to create a situation where terrorists aren't incubated by lousy economic systems or other problems at home, it behooves us to help the economies of Muslim countries.

They might help their own economies simply by not looting and burning buildings and disrupting society when newspapers in far away lands publish pictures they don't like.

When the bulk of foreign Muslims stop acting like insulted eight-year-olds, I might think about having a conversation with the word economy in it. Until then, I don't much care about helping them at our expense.

daksya|2.26.06 @ 5:11AM|#

When the bulk of foreign Muslims stop acting like insulted eight-year-olds, I might think about having a conversation with the word economy in it. Until then, I don't much care about helping them at our expense.

1)I wasn't aware that "the bulk of", say, 800 million adult muslims were acting like 8-yr olds.

2)Until they have an economy to satiate them, those who do, will continue to act like eight year olds, because their perceived dignity is all they have to hold onto.