Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Nativists, Get Back In Your Cages!
During my semi-annual visit to the gym (I do try to get there more often, really), I was watching the execrable Lou Dobbs show. Dobbs was so apoplectic over the Dubai ports deal that he looked like he was about to burst a vein. During his One Hour Hate of all things non-American, Dobbs conducted a lovefest (ah, interview) with an even more loathsome nativist, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) who is vowing to stop the infiltration of our ports by evil foreigners.
The Washington Post reports this delicious exchange between Hunter and the conservative Heritage Foundation's James Carafano at Congressional hearing yesterday.
At yesterday's House hearing, a pair of experts tried to redirect the lawmakers' fury. "This commercial transaction will not qualitatively affect the overall state of global and American maritime transportation security," testified Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations. While condemning overall port security, he called the current battle "a political food fight."
The Heritage Foundation's James Carafano cautioned: "I don't find any compelling security concerns here."
Hunter was incredulous. "How can you possibly say that you didn't see in this particular case, in this particular deal, a security problem?" he demanded, calling the United Arab Emirates "accommodators" who "accommodate people that come to them with large amounts of cash."
Carafano pointed out that most shipping operations are foreign-owned anyway.
"Let me stop you at that," Hunter said, again calling the UAE greedy. "Are you sure you can say, from a security standpoint, that the ownership is irrelevant?"
Carafano could. "The system is really ownership-irrelevant," he replied.
Hunter interrupted again, but Carafano was unmoved. "You don't need to buy a $7 billion company to penetrate maritime security," he said. "The Mafia doesn't buy FedEx to smuggle."
Warren|3.3.06 @ 10:00AM|#
The Mafia doesn't buy FedEx to smuggle
ROFL *SNARK*!!
I don't know why Hunter is all twitterpated over ownership. Just
having a port is a security nightmare. "My God! There's tons of
stuff coming into this country every day. FROM FOREIGN PLACES!" Why
doesn't he just propose closing all US ports? I'm sure Dobbs would
lick his sphincter if he did.
|3.3.06 @ 10:09AM|#
So can I assume the previously foaming and frenzied H&R gang has turned the corner on this?
|3.3.06 @ 10:30AM|#
Give them time Mr. Wise Ass, I'm sure someone will use the term Islamofacist soon.
|3.3.06 @ 10:32AM|#
One of the knocks on Dubai seems to be its increasingly Hong
Kong-like nature. Things happen there. Commerce. Legal and not
legal. Naturally the bad guys do things there, for the same reasons
the good guys do. Even the issue with them being reticent about
giving up al Qaeda-related banking information isn't that
surprising--try getting information on a Caymans or Swiss account.
Not that Dubai or the larger UAE doesn't have its problems from our
perspective, but let's not forget that they are Muslim and have to
live with much more powerful Muslim neighbors.
I heard something today about us giving the UAE 80 F-16s,
apparently with all (well, most) of the bells and whistles. Must
not be too bad for us to do that. Though I've also heard that
selling fighters costs us nothing strategically, because these
countries usually lack the infrastructure to support an effective
air force.
There's plenty of navel-gazing going on with this deal now, so if
it gets cleared by everyone after it's all done, I'm not going to
spend a lot of time worrying about it. Of course, if any violence
ends up happening after all in Tampa, I'm getting my pirate sword
and am going to go Sinbad on the Middle East.
|3.3.06 @ 10:41AM|#
It would be way, way too much to ask of a politician to admit
that Homeland Security has been a farce from the get-go.
In view of that, we go out of our way to piss off the UAE?
Really,really smart.
|3.3.06 @ 11:30AM|#
The gradual transformation of Lou Dobb's CNN show from a fairly
straight-forward business news program to raging nativist bulletin
is in large part ratings-related.
Dobbs basically owned business news on cable in the 1990s until he
gave up his CNN gig and tried to run a website, space.com, during
the internet gold rush days.
When that sputtered out he returned to CNN but struggled to regain
his old audience, most of which had switched to CNBC in the
interim.
Eventually Dobbs found a whole new audience by railing against
immigration, job outsourcing, union decline and free trade. He
carved out a special niche for himself by becoming Pat Buchanan,
only with less baggage.
And it works. As far as my paleoconservative friends are concerned,
Dobbs can do no wrong.
|3.3.06 @ 11:40AM|#
Kim Jong Il is ineligible for the position; therefore, I nominate Lou Dobbs for president. Perhaps Mr Kim would consent to give him a few pointers.
|3.3.06 @ 11:49AM|#
In view of that, we go out of our way to piss off the
UAE?
So what? I think given their history, location, and their lousy
human rights record, they deserve extra scrutiny. When are we going
to stop pretending Dubai is anything other than a few really,
really rich emirs lording it over the imported workforce who have
no rights?
|3.3.06 @ 11:57AM|#
Rhywun,
Hey, I shop at Wal-Mart.
I'm not at all picky about the morals of the people I choose to do
business with.
|3.3.06 @ 11:58AM|#
Bailey once again follows his hero Bush blindly. Just come out as a Republican already. You are already a whore for the Pharmaceutical industry.
|3.3.06 @ 12:03PM|#
Seems the Israeli shipping company, ZIM, has stepped into the fray on the side of DPW. Also seems the UAE boycott of Israel is mostly window-dressing for the fundos and is routinely unobserved by UAE business interests.
Captain Holly|3.3.06 @ 12:13PM|#
Given the fact that Mr. Hunter's district makes billions of dollars from trade with the world's largest totalitarian state, this is beyond ironic.
|3.3.06 @ 12:18PM|#
I'm not at all picky about the morals of the people I choose
to do business with.
I said in another thread that I'm not comfortable with all the
shady regimes we do business with - but there's no escaping it, is
there?
|3.3.06 @ 12:25PM|#
Ronald Bailey, have you ever even considered the
possibility that at least some of the people who oppose
this Dubai deal are not "nativists" or anti-Arab bigots, but people
with concerns about letting a dictatorial foreign government with a
dismal human rights record any role in our ports?
Maybe we're wrong. Maybe there is no reason to worry about said
foreign government having a role in our port system. But can't you
address those issues rather than scream "nativist!" and pretend
that racism or isolationism is our only possible motivation?
|3.3.06 @ 12:27PM|#
Or to put it another way: Ron Bailey, if you are correct in your opinion about this port deal, why can't you justify it without resorting to turning your opponents into strawmen?
|3.3.06 @ 12:44PM|#
Lou Dobbs makes me want to vomit. Not only does he engage in the
same ignorant bullshit day in and day out, he seriously badgers
anyone who dares to try to disagree with him, and basically won't
let them speak.
His polls are ridiculous. They are totally leading, effectively
with things like: "Do you think Satan is bad?" dressed up as if
they are legitimate unbiased questions, and they always get 98% of
the vote, a similar percentage to what dictators like Castro get in
their "elections".
Also, someone also needs to teach him that sarcasm is not a form of
humor, it is a merely a shameful show of holier-than-thou
loathing.
Ali|3.3.06 @ 12:50PM|#
Jennifer,
Please to come visit. We will change your mind about the UAE. And
we promise we will not force you to wear a burqa.
Sunny days!
|3.3.06 @ 12:57PM|#
All of the free-trade arguments aside, doesn't a war on terror
mean deals like this are suspect? Would the US have entered
contracts with any of the Axis nations in WWII?
Shouldn't this shine light on the actual threat level?
|3.3.06 @ 1:07PM|#
Jennifer: I hear you. I am NOT saying that everyone who opposes
the Dubai port deal is a nativist. Perhaps there are some good
arguments against the deal, but I have not encountered them
yet.
In any case, I AM SAYING that Hunter and Dobbs are raving
foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic nativists. All you have to do in tune
in to CNN this afternoon and you'll see.
|3.3.06 @ 1:07PM|#
Jennifer,
Let's not forget, this is the "Science Correspondant" who managed
to forget, in every single piece he writes about alternative
engergy, that the concern about wind turbines killing birds is two
decades out of date.
Speaking of which, why haven't we seen any "second hand smoke has
been proven to be harmless" posts in the past few weeks? Har har
har.
|3.3.06 @ 1:12PM|#
As somebody who is sort of on the fence about the deal - someone
who has concerns about the implications of allowing the government
of a moderate but still Islamist dictatorship handle operations
that are important for our security, but who isn't convinced that
denying them the deal is the right thing to do (if we don't grade
Middle Eastern dictatorships that are making some progress to
liberalization on a curve, we lose an important carrot) - having
these nativist right wing loonies nominally "on my side" is a
serious bummer.
With friends like these...
Orphan Eagle|3.3.06 @ 1:13PM|#
wind turbines killing birds is two decades out of
date
So why hasn't my mommy come back home?
|3.3.06 @ 1:26PM|#
Hunter interrupted again, but Carafano was unmoved. "You
don't need to buy a $7 billion company to penetrate maritime
security," he said. "The Mafia doesn't buy FedEx to
smuggle."
Heh. Rep. Duncan Hunter, PWNED-Calif.
|3.3.06 @ 1:36PM|#
"I heard something today about us giving the UAE 80 F-16s,
apparently with all (well, most) of the bells and whistles."
Not so much "gave" as "sold" (but you probably meant that).
A ridiculous number of countries have bought F-16s. It's the
world's most "popular" fighter. This variant is pretty damn
advanced. There are plenty of articles out there on this
sale.
"...these countries usually lack the infrastructure to support an
effective air force."
Boy, you ain't kiddin'. Infrastructure, motivated military (UAE
nationals aren't known for their work ethic), etc...
R C Dean|3.3.06 @ 1:43PM|#
the concern about wind turbines killing birds is two decades
out of date.
Which would explain yesterday's article at CBS news on how concerns
about wind turbines killing birds and bats is a barrier to its
development.
"It is now recognized that wind power facilities can have
adverse impacts, particularly on wildlife, and most significantly
on birds and bats," the General Accountability Office (GAO)
reported in September.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/02/tech/main1363950.shtml
|3.3.06 @ 2:12PM|#
Oops, anon, I thought I fixed the gave/sold thing. I guess I only fixed it once. Now if we gave away F-16s to a rich country, that really would be a scandal!!
Captain Holly|3.3.06 @ 2:14PM|#
Call me dense, but I fail to see how a UAE-owned company that
buys out a British-owned company that uses almost exclusively
American employees to run six American ports is somehow a grave
threat to our national security.
(Seems to me that if the UAE is such a grave threat to our
national security, then we can start by forbidding our Navy from
using Dubai as a base.)
It's like someone claiming Toyotas that are assembled in America by
American workers using American-made parts are still somehow
"imports".
Oh, wait. GM, Ford, and the UAW say that all the time, don't
they?
|3.3.06 @ 2:47PM|#
Hey Ron, did Jack Abramoff buy you any of those little umbrella
drinks when he took you to the South Pacific?
*cough cough* Sorry, it's smokey here.
|3.3.06 @ 2:52PM|#
Did I just get accused of making personal attacks by someone who keeps writing posts calling people who have problems with this deal "nativists" and "racists?"
|3.3.06 @ 2:59PM|#
joe, just to clarify, was your use of "nativist right wing loonies" not ad hominem? :)
|3.3.06 @ 3:06PM|#
Actually, Pro L, it was not. An ad hominem is an argument that
"Statement X by Speaker Y is untrue, because Speaker Y is Z." Z
being a bad thing.
Where I was saying that the "right wing loonies" may be right in
their argument, my characterization of them was not an ad hominem,
just a personal insult.
|3.3.06 @ 3:19PM|#
joe: First, I didn't call anyone a "racist." Secondly, it is a
fact that they are nativists so calling them that is not an ad
homimen attack.
Thirdly, let's parse how your formula for an ad hominen attack
might apply to your comments about me.
"Statement X by Speaker Y is untrue, because Speaker Y is Z." Z
being a bad thing."
"Dobbs and Hunter are nativists" is untrue, because "Ron Bailey"
went on "a trip paid for my clients of Jack Abramoff." "Going on
trips paid for by clients of Jack Abramoff" is a "bad thing."
Why yes, joe, it is clearly the case that foreigner bashing by
nativists is OK since Ron Bailey is against it.
(And never mind that Bailey disclosed
that his trip was paid for in the story and that the story was
hardly uncritical of Abramoff's client.)
|3.3.06 @ 3:29PM|#
Getting sloppy, Ron.
'"Dobbs and Hunter are nativists" is untrue, because..."
I never made any such statement. In fact, I agreed with you that
Dobbs and Hunter are nativists, and condemned them for it. See joe
1:12.
The only ad homenim here is the implication you make, that concerns
about this deal must be illegitimate, because some of its critics
are nativists.
|3.3.06 @ 3:31PM|#
Jennifer,
Then why aren't you complaining about Chinese owned and Singapore
owned ports? I know you're not an Arab hater, but why the sudden
interest?
|3.3.06 @ 3:31PM|#
In other words, Mr. Science Editor, stop blowing smoke, because
it's making me sick.
The Fume(ntos) are getting to me.
Perhaps you should stop Band(ow)ying about these sloppy
arguments.
|3.3.06 @ 3:57PM|#
Then why aren't you complaining about Chinese owned and
Singapore owned ports? I know you're not an Arab hater, but why the
sudden interest?
Because for all the faults of China and Singapore (and I am NOT
sticking up for either one), they are not followers of an ideology
we're supposedly "at war" with.
I put "at war" in quotes because I don't think this war on terror
is a true war. Nonetheless, the people we're fighting now are
fanatics who want to do things like impose Sharia law wherever they
can, so I don't see how turning any port operations over to a
Sharia government is a smart idea.
It's worth repeating that this isn't a privately owned company out
of Dubai, but a government-owned company. And given the current
world situation, I have an inherent distrust of a government that
was one of only three to give diplomatic recognition to the
Taliban, a government whom our own Treasury Department condemned
after 9-11 for not helping track Bin Laden's bank account, and a
government who has some members who are such great friends with Bin
Laden that they all went out on a falcon party back in 1999 or
thereabouts. Not to mention a government that might be friendly to
tourists but denies significant human rights to its own people,
especially the female ones.
THAT is why I oppose this deal. Not because of nativism,
isolationism, or inherent distrust of people who are darker than
me.
|3.3.06 @ 4:00PM|#
Ronald Bailey, have you ever even considered the possibility
that at least some of the people who oppose this Dubai deal are not
"nativists" or anti-Arab bigots, but people with concerns about
letting a dictatorial foreign government with a dismal human rights
record any role in our ports?
Thats right, we must stop our ports from being taken over by
dictatorial foreign governments with disimal human rights
records!!! We want our ports run by a dictitorial domestic
government with dismal human rights records, dammit!! :) God bless
the U.S.A., and Pat Bucannan!
Seriously though, it is possible there might be some legit concern
about the port deal, however anyone with any legit concerns has
decided to remain absolutly silent on the issue. Every single
person I have heard speak out against the deal has been a nativist
anti-Arab bigot. Well, perhaps there are a few people who say "I am
not racist or bigoted, I have logical and reasonable reasons for
wanted TO KEEP THEM MUSLIM TOWELHEAD BASTARDS FROM RUINING OUR
COUNTRY!".
If there is anyone that has legit reason's for being against this
deal, why are they absolutly forbidden from saying them?!?! I mean,
can't anyone give me 1 good reason to be sceptical about the deal,
that doesn't involve name calling or inflamitory judgements about
entire countries and groups of people? Or the occasional "Bush
Supports It - So It MUST Be Bad!".
|3.3.06 @ 4:02PM|#
joe: You're fine one to call me "sloppy" when you're the one falsely asserting that I called someone else a "racist" in this discussion.
|3.3.06 @ 4:03PM|#
Some links re: the ZIM shipping connection.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395526477&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000065318&fid=942
|3.3.06 @ 4:11PM|#
Every single person I have heard speak out against the deal
has been a nativist anti-Arab bigot. Well, perhaps there are a few
people who say "I am not racist or bigoted, I have logical and
reasonable reasons for wanted TO KEEP THEM MUSLIM TOWELHEAD
BASTARDS FROM RUINING OUR COUNTRY!".
Every single person minus one, maybe--me. I do not use phrases like
towelhead or raghead and have nothing but contempt for those who
do, but I have reasons for not wanting a dictatorial government
with a miserable human rights record and fairly recent ties to Bin
Laden to have anything to do with our port security.
|3.3.06 @ 4:14PM|#
I continue to be amazed by this whole thing. No matter who owns
the ports, black, brown, yellow, red, white and/or blue - the
people responsible for its security are Federal agencies such as
the coast guard.
I don't see how their ownership of the port would be any different
than having the UAE buy a building in Manhattan or invest in GM
stock.
But this whole thing sure does serve as a good litmus test to see
who is outwardly or inwardly suspicious of brown folk for any and
all reasons..
|3.3.06 @ 4:21PM|#
this whole thing sure does serve as a good litmus test to
see who is outwardly or inwardly suspicious of brown folk for any
and all reasons.
Do you find it comforting to live in such a two-sided world? "You
either agree with me on this issue or you are a racist."
|3.3.06 @ 4:22PM|#
Jennifer,
Well China is nice and buddy, buddy with N. Korea, who would knock
our block off if given the opportunity. And while we are not at war
with communism anymore, we were for decades. If there is another
state that can potentially go toe to toe with the US, it's China. I
have a lot more reasons to fear the big bad Chinese, than the rinky
dink UAE, who have a lot to lose if they f-- this up.
The Chinese port company is also state owned and operate in the
largest international port in the US.
|3.3.06 @ 4:27PM|#
Oh well, this will be small potatoes if the rumor that a UAE firm is aquiring a British firm that has US defense contracts manufacturing aircraft parts and instrumentation is true.
|3.3.06 @ 4:29PM|#
Mo, if I had my druthers I'd refuse to allow any government who's not an official ally with Western-style human rights standards to own any port facilities or have anything to do with port security in this country.
|3.3.06 @ 4:43PM|#
I remain against allowing any foreign government any
degree of involvement in managing US ports.
However, I find it interesting that the unique reason
given for opposing Dubai's involvement is that the country is run
by sharia law. Presumably, it doesn't matter that Dubai is
an exceedingly liberal sharia and friendly nation (and the
most liberal of the UAE), the mere fact it uses sharia
should require we treat it with the same hostility and opprobrium
Iraq or Taliban Afghanistan deserves and deserved.
Why tell moderate and friendly Muslim governments (and their
citizens) that we equate them with the most hostile, radical
nations? Is there a cunning strategem here I'm not seeing?
|3.3.06 @ 4:44PM|#
And still no thread on the US/India nuke deal.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1684264
|3.3.06 @ 4:49PM|#
(Or is "sharia" one of those foreign-language words we use enough to not have to italicize anymore? I forget.)
|3.3.06 @ 4:55PM|#
Let me go on record as saying that India, not China, is the future of Asia. China has intrinsic flaws that will unravel some of what it has accomplished so far. India, on the other hand, could just explode in growth, especially with a strong relationship with the U.S. Not a bad move by Bush, I have to admit.
|3.3.06 @ 4:55PM|#
Presumably, it doesn't matter that Dubai is an exceedingly
liberal sharia and friendly nation (and the most liberal of the
UAE), the mere fact it uses sharia should require we treat it with
the same hostility and opprobrium Iraq or Taliban Afghanistan
deserves and deserved.
Maybe it's liberal if you're a man. I understand women are still
basically property there. From my perspective, the fact that
they're pretty nice to almost half of their population
isn't quite good enough.
|3.3.06 @ 4:56PM|#
And still no thread on the US/India nuke deal.
I don't see anything objectionable about it, aside from the
government involved in brokering military planes (should be between
friendly governments and manufacturers). Something there that
concerns you?
|3.3.06 @ 5:02PM|#
Maybe it's liberal if you're a man. I understand women are
still basically property there.
I understand that to be rather less so than other sharia
nations, so that makes rather more than half the population that
Dubai treats better.
But again, is there a foreign policy benefit to the government
telling moderate countries that we don't view them as any different
from the radical ones?
|3.3.06 @ 5:04PM|#
Jennifer, the Minister for the Economy is a woman.
http://www.zu.ac.ae/leadership2006/sheikhalubna.aspx
|3.3.06 @ 5:36PM|#
On second thought since corruption is also rife in China, the connection to liberty is doubtful. Maybe it's the residual oppression that persists that promotes corruption.
|3.3.06 @ 6:37PM|#
the Minister for the Economy is a woman.
Pakistan once had a female head of state but that doesn't mean the
country has a good record insofar as women's rights are
concerned.
|3.3.06 @ 7:05PM|#
It is my understanding, from ACTUALLY TALKING WITH UAE nationals
that sharia applies to Muslims only and is not particularly
strictly enforced. You'll note that a huge portion of the
population of the UAE is ex-pats, and a big portion of them are not
Muslim.
Additionally, adherence to the covering of one's face/body is
pretty much strictly voluntary in the UAE for Muslim women and
largely depends on one's level of devoutness and (interestingly)
monetary/social status. UAE nationals with money tend to wear the
full abaya, and sometimes get pretty fancy with it (as fancy as one
can get with black). There are several stores per mall devoted to
abaya fashion (and accessories).
You'll often see National women wearing the abaya, with face
covering, but only have the top button fastened so that when they
walk, the rest of the garment flows open and shows the ridiculously
flashy dress and high-heels beneath.
In any case, the majority of Muslim women in that country
(including ex-pats) wear little more than simple head covering,
face in full view.
It's nothing like you suppose. It's still a bit surreal the first
few times you wander through the malls and see a gaggle of
abaya-clad women in a place all about fashion and Western
modernity, but you get used to it and eventually find that most of
the women you see are dressed more or less how they like
(especially Western ex-pats, who can wear just about whatever they
want).
|3.3.06 @ 8:43PM|#
I completely believe RexRhino when he says that he hasn't seen
any reasonable, nonracist arguments against Dubai Ports taking over
management of 21 American ports, including providing security,
doing checks on hires, and complying with security
regulations.
I know for a fact that those arguments have been made on threads in
which he's commented, because I have made them, and have seen other
people make them, on threads in which he's appeared.
But I have no doubt whatsoever that he has never, not once, read
and understood one of those arguments. Why would you, when you can
get that warm fuzzy feeling of calling people ractists AND ignore
inconvenient facts that complicate your political posture?
Jon Swift|3.3.06 @ 8:58PM|#
I thought some of you might be interested in a review of Lou
Dobbs' book Exporting America I have written for Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A23664PX3VILKS/ref=cm_cr_auth/103-5626492-0754242?%5Fencoding=UTF8
Bienvenidos de Mexico!|3.3.06 @ 11:17PM|#
Hola!
On behalf of Vicente Fox, I'd like to invite Ronald Bailey, Nick
Gillespie, and the gang to help our country get the word out! We're
already paying R0b Allen $720,000 a year to spread our "message"
inside Mexico del Norte, and since you're doing our work for us and
since our records show you're doing it for free, I'd like to offer
some money to help us even more!
What do you say, Ronald and Nick? What's your price?
|3.4.06 @ 12:58AM|#
Jennifer:
While I'm not inclined to defend the UAE government, I just need to
say that your relentless use of the pejorative term "dictator" and
its variations is either misguided or deliberately disingenuous.
And the "recent connections" to bin Laden are 7 years old.
|3.4.06 @ 10:55AM|#
your relentless use of the pejorative term "dictator" and
its variations is either misguided or deliberately
disingenuous
So is the UAE governed by elected officials accountable to the
people, then?
Sometimes, terms like "dictatorial" or "Islamic" or even (in other
contexts) "Communist" are not meant as pejoratives, but as simple
descriptions.
|3.4.06 @ 4:04PM|#
Why do we care what the UAE does within it's own borders? That should never be a reason to refuse to do business with them. Every country, including the U.S., grossly violates human rights in certain cases. If we decide to only do business with countries that have a perfect human rights record, then we won't do any business at all. The only time we should impose any sort of embargo is when a country does something that causes harm outside of its borders, such as dumping toxins into the ocean, supporting international terrorist groups, etc. We should view commerce between nations in the same way that we view commerce between individuals. For example, Person A should not refuse to do business with person B just because person B engages in some activity which causes self-harm (drug abuse, cutting, etc). Person A should refuse to do business with person B if Person B does something which causes harm to Person A, C, or D.
|3.4.06 @ 8:22PM|#
But again, is there a foreign policy benefit to the
government telling moderate countries that we don't view them as
any different from the radical ones?
*crickets*
OK, I'm guessing no one is willing to claim there's a benefit to
doing that.
|3.4.06 @ 8:35PM|#
For example, Person A should not refuse to do business with
person B just because person B engages in some activity which
causes self-harm (drug abuse, cutting, etc). Person A should refuse
to do business with person B if Person B does something which
causes harm to Person A, C, or D.
This analogy only works if you take the "people are mere cells in
the greater body of the state" view of nations. When Person B does
something "which causes self-harm", Person B is the one actually
harmed, by his direct personal actions.
When the UAE commits what you'd call acts of self-harm, it's
individual men and women, not an entity called the UAE, who are
harmed, and these people are harmed not through their own direct
actions, but by forces outside themselves.
|3.4.06 @ 10:59PM|#
Jennifer: the "dictator or democracy" argument is a false
dichotomy. The government in the UAE is not elected, but it is
consultative - this is an attribute of the tribal governance system
that has existed in the region for a couple of millennia.
Your absolutist statements only serve to make it clear that you
don't know anything of the culture and history of the region.
Secondly, your desire to impose made-in-America forms of governance
on people who don't necessarily want tham can only be called what
they are: arrogant western cultural imperialism.
The locals are a little reluctant to immediately jettison their
traditional form of governance in its entirety because it has
served them pretty well for a long time. There have been massive
changes in this society over the past 40 years, and holding onto
some of their traditions makes it a little easier to accept the
changes that are happening. Try to imagine, if you can, a country
that has transitioned from a pre-industrial (perhaps even
pre-agrarian) nomadic tribal society to a modern, cosmopolitan,
technological society in only 40 years - they have done what took
500 years in the West. It's my honest opinion that they have
handled this massive dislocation better than a lot of other
societies have - other societies that were able to take things a
lot slower. Rest assured that the rulers understand that in a
modern world it will be necessary to transition to a democracy, and
first steps in that transitionary process are under way.
I will only reiterate that your argument to date on this manner has
been simplistic and uninformed. We all know that you're humorous,
quick-witted and reasonably intelligent, but sometimes there's no
excuse for actually knowing what you're talking about. Democracy
will come abut in the UAE when the locals want it. And hard as it
may be for you to believe, they have not been clamoring for it to
date. There has been no repression of pro-democratic thought,
perhaps for the reason that there is so little pro-democratic
agitation. Read a few local blogs, and you'll understand that the
locals want to go very slowly down this path - they have seen what
the hasty and premature application of democratic systems have done
in other countries in the region that were not ready for
them.
Secondly, "the UAE" doesn't commit acts, people commit acts. A
country is either (a) a patch of inanimate earth or (b) an abstract
association of individuals. In either case, a "country" lacks the
ability to undertake actions. Only people can do things. And the
people of every country can make domestic policy without consulting
you first.
|3.5.06 @ 11:36AM|#
your desire to impose made-in-America forms of governance on
people who don't necessarily want tham can only be called what they
are: arrogant western cultural imperialism.
Who said I want to impose our government on them? I just said I
don't want a country with their form of government to have anything
to do with our ports.
|3.5.06 @ 5:00PM|#
So exactly what about their form of government is such a
deal-breaker for you? Barry's description of the political
attitudes of the UAE square with my experience. The government
itself is certainly NOT dictatorial and it is certainly NOT
democratic, though Skeikh Khalifa and co. have taken some pretty
serious steps in that direction just in the last couple of months.
It's something between the two extremes.
And I have yet to hear a serious address of the complete LACK of
clamor over China taking over operations at some of our ports when
it was happening.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245