Port of Fools
I am sure by now everybody has heard about the storm surrounding the selling of administrative duties to a state run shipping company in the United Arab Emirates. The common argument against this transaction is that giving a foreign nation with questionable ties to terrorism reign over our ports is an invitation to terrorists to use those ports as points of entry.
These six ports, wait no… these twenty-one ports serve as major points of entry into our nation. Most of these ports are beside major cities, on rivers, and at major interstate junctions. Any terrorist using these ports to enter our nation would be able to hop from there to nearly anywhere in the country. And because of the Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 operators of port facilities can gain access to Coast Guard security incident response plans. To repeat, the administrators in the UAE would be able to find out how the Coast Guard plans to counter and respond to terror attacks.
But that is not the only reason we should not trust this surrender of our ports, because this deal has an even worse level to it. The UAE, and DP World (the UAE run company) are renowned through out the world as a haven for traffickers. Heroin and opium from Afghanistan are transported through the ports to locations west. Human traffickers use the UAE as a hub for their illicit trade, bringing women and children from Asia and Africa through their ports for sale there and in other nation. And nuclear weapons making materials have been tracked through UAE ports on their way to Iran.
Narcotics, slavery, and nuclear weapons are all illegal to trade through the ports of the UAE. But everybody knows that for the right pass official Emirate entanglements can be waived. The UAE has laws making these activities illegal, they just don’t care to enforce them… and do we really want unscrupulous people like this running our ports? Do we want to give people of such attitude access to our security plans around the ports that they administer? I know I sure as hell don’t.
The President stands by his pronouncement that he will veto any attempt to block this transaction. I am seriously wondering if the President is just being doggedly stubborn, or if he has actually gone mad. These are not the kind of people that we need running our ports, I am none to happy that there are foreign companies administering such delicate and poorly protected points of entry… but to actually have unprincipled people like this at the reigns is nothing short of insanity.
I can respect your position, but I tend to disagree. I’ll summarize why, without getting too bogged down in the politics of the issue which I honestly think should be as non-political as possible.
Port companies are not responsible for port security. That’s what we have the lumbering federal government for, in theory. Border security– one of the handful of legitimate functions undertaken by the Federal Government. Its not as though with a wink and a nod, the UAE owned London-based British company will be dropping care packages to Jihadists. They’ll be managing a port. Security is not what they’re there for — its to run a profitable port. There’s a tremendous incentive to cooperate, between public spectacle and the profit motive.
You mentioned the Coast Guard and the MTSA of 2002. You’ll note that the government can legally decline to give those plans to any operator. Can have access, does not equate with must have access.
Let’s not forget that plans that exist outside the Coast Guard are not even subject to that level of requested access.
If we want to say ‘Ports must be operated and owned by XXX or XXX’ , we’re headed down a road that’s just as troubling. Unless nationalizing the ports is a preferable option, the status quo is that Americans already do not generally own or operate their own port management authorities.
All too often, we hear people complaining against profiling individuals, but for profiling entities that are for profit businesses. I prefer if both are subjected to extremely high scrutiny. A single standard, please, for all.
“A single standard, please, for all.”
A single standard is a sign of limited thinking. Let us instead apply common sense.
Now, I don’t know if this port deal does or does not jeopardize our national security. But here’s what seems to be undisputed:
* This “for-profit” enterprise is owned by the Emir of Dubai.
* The UAE does not recognize Israel as a nation.
* The UAE did, however, recognize the Taliban.
* The UAE has clearly-demonstrated ties to Al Quaeda and Osama bin Laden, as well as ties to money laundering.
As I understand it, none of those points are in dispute.
Publius, you JUST wrote a post about the “Age of Terror.” I seriously wonder what values, if any, you actually hold firmly.
Is this deal in the best interest of the United States of America? It seems difficult to say that it is. What do we gain from this deal, besides offsetting a tiny bit of the trade defecit.
This deal may not jeopardize our national security, but does it in any way ENHANCE that security? It is very difficult to see how.
I’m not sure that foreign ownership of critical infrastructure is a good thing. I am pretty sure that selling these operations to a country with demonstrated ties to “our enemies in the War on Terror” is distressing and counterproductive.
Please answer me honestly, Publius. Does selling these operations increase the security of the United States? After all, isn’t it the President’s “Constitutional responsibility to keep us safe?”
Publie:
Profiling: You are an officer monitoring traffic on the highway and watch cars passing, only stopping those who, say, are black and driving moderately nice to expensive vehicles.
Profiling: You are working airport security check points and check everyone who appears to be arab regardless of if their identification is legitimate or wheter or not the match any existing profiles or descriptions.
Intelligent: Not allowing a company who has proven time and again to at the very least turns a “blind eye” to illegal and terrorist activities to have control of your ports and possibly have access to security knowledge.
Blocking DP World from having control of these ports isn’t profiling. We’re not doing this because they’re an arab-controlled company? Have you not been LISTENING to anything that has been said? We’re doing this because they have definative ties to terrorits. Iraq didn’t even do this much and we invaded them!
How would you feel about your wife/girlfriend going to a doctor for gynecological visits who was known for molesting some of his patients?
In that case and in the case of DP World, you’re talking about people who abuse the position they have to perform or, in DP World’s case allow, illegal activities.
I think that there is a lot of ill-founded rhetoric on this issue from both sides. Yes, a lot of questionable activities have occurred in Dubai and the UAE, even activities by terrorist organizations. However, Dubai is and has been a market with very few restrictions for a long time, and whenever you have a market of that kind, questionable activies occur there. That doesn’t mean the government of that country is complicit in those activities, it’s just what happens when you operate a market and port of that type. A good analogy is the Swiss banking system. I’m fairly certain that terrorists and possibly even terrorist organizations maintain Swiss bank accounts. Does that mean that the Swiss government is complicit in terrorist activies? No. And DP World did go through the same vetting procedure that every other company that wants to buy and operate ports in the U.S. does, and passed with flying colors, that’s why the sale wasn’t originally brought to the attention of the President or his senior staff. And the UAE government has been very accomodating in our efforts to thwart terrorism, holding them to a different standard than others could sour that relationship.
The other side has problems with it’s arguments as well. Just because only 8 ports of the over 200 in the U.S. are owned by U.S. companies doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. “This is the way it’s always been done” doesn’t mean that it’s the way it should be done. And there are legitimate concerns about letting any company that is owned by another country’s government buy and operate ports in this country.
Both sides have legitimate concerns and arguments, but both are spitting rhetoric and political bs, it’s obvious even in this thread. Could some kind of compromise be reached? Probably. Is it likely to happen in this political climate? No, and that’s the fault of both sides.
Let me adress a couple of the points brought up here.
DP World will not be responsible for port security. This is correct. But DP World will be granted hundreds of work visas to be able to relocate managers and their families to the US. Al Qaeda will have significant opportunities to appeal to Muslim solidarity or simple threats of violence to receive visas from these workers. Thus, giving Al Qaeda opperatives a free pass into our nation.
The status quo is that Americans already do not generally own or operate their own port management authorities. This is correct, but this is something that should have been changed after 9/11. Transportation infrastructure and utilities should be owned and opperated by US based companies. Now I am not suggesting that these foreign companies hand over their properties in the US, but they should be required to create US based independent business units to manage their holdings. This would give US law enforcement greater access to monitor these sensitive targets; and it would reduce the number of visas that a company would need or be awarded to carry out their business.
And DP World did go through the same vetting procedure that every other company that wants to buy and operate ports in the U.S. does. Actually this is questionable, US Treasury Sec. John Snow, the chairman of the CFIUS (the comitte charged with vetting these transactions) had stated that he was unaware of the deal until he read about it in the news. It should be noted that he is obligated by law to chair this comittee… how was it that he was the chair of this comittee and only heard about it AFTER it hit the news? This leads me to believe that this deal may not have received all due and appropriate attention that it is required to receive under the law.
By your same reasoning, we shouldn’t approve anyone who is Muslim or from an Islamic nation for a visa, for work or any other reason, because that gives Al Qaeda significant opportunities to appeal to Muslim solidarity or simple threats of violence to recieve visas from these people. While I agree that additional scrutiny is justified when reviewing visa applications for individuals such as these, to suggest that merely issuing them visas, when due diligence is done to weed out those associated with terrorist groups, is quite bigoted, in my opinion. Simply because someone is from an Islamic country or is Muslim isn’t reason to deny them a visa, it doesn’t “give Al Qaeda operatives a free pass into our nation.” There are quite a few Muslims living and worshipping peacefully in this country, saying that simply allowing those persons into this country “gives Al Qaeda operatives a free pass into our nation” is quite unfounded.
As for requiring foreign companies managing U.S. ports to create independent business units, I think that’s quite reasonable. Foreign companies that have U.S. defense contracts (like Fabrique Nationale, Beretta, Heckler and Koch, etc.) are required to do exactly the same thing if they wish to produce defense materials for the U.S., so there is quite a bit of precedent for this kind of thing.
As for the vetting procedure, perhaps it did not recieve all due and appropriate attention that the law requires, but, it’s likely that other things under this committee’s purview didn’t either. That is something that should be investigated and corrected, and perhaps the vetting procedure should be changed.
I think there’s a lot of agreement between the comments, especially the previous 2. Due diligence. Common sense. Reasonable process. Nice to see.
I just want to point out that it’s not the same to equate allowing foreign corporations to own American infrastructure to denying individual visas, and I think it’s disingenuous to try and do so.
The reasoning is NOT the same. There is a difference between an individual and a nation. Is there any doubt about that? It is wrong to deny visas to any individual based on religion or ethnicity.
It is not wrong to deny visas to individuals based on criminal activity, or even ties to criminal activity. In fact, a real problem in US border control is that we do not/cannot do enough background investigation (viz. Russian mobsters immigrating).
By the same token, it is not “racist” to tell a state-owned enterprise that it cannot own critical pieces of American infrastructure. DP Ports World is owned by the Emir of Dubai. The UAE has demonstrated links to Al Quaeda. Maybe, just maybe, they shouldn’t operate American ports. If this were an entirely private corporation, things might be different, but this is a government-owned firm.
But please don’t try to imply racism. It’s oversimplistic and smells just a bit intellectually dishonest.
I never implied racism, I implied bigotry, there is a difference, look it up.
One of code’s arguments was that we shouldn’t let them own or manage the ports because they would bring hundreds of people in from the UAE to work in that port, and that would require giving those people from the UAE visas, and doing would be a security risk because they are from the UAE and Muslim. That is a very bigoted statement, in my opinion. Show evidence that an individual is a security risk because they have ties to terrorist groups, fine, deny them a visa. But deny them a visa simply because they’re Muslim and from the UAE, when they have no ties to any terrorist groups? That’s bigotry. And that is what code is suggesting is a good reason for blocking the sale of these ports to DP World, because that action would bring in Muslims from the UAE to work here.
“One of code’s arguments was that we shouldn’t let them own or manage the ports because they would bring hundreds of people in from the UAE to work in that port, and that would require giving those people from the UAE visas, and doing would be a security risk because they are from the UAE and Muslim.”
If that’s what he said, it would perhaps be bigoted. But it’s not what he said. This is:
“But DP World will be granted hundreds of work visas to be able to relocate managers and their families to the US. Al Qaeda will have significant opportunities to appeal to Muslim solidarity or simple threats of violence to receive visas from these workers. Thus, giving Al Qaeda opperatives a free pass into our nation.”
I think what he’s saying is pretty clear – giving an al Qaeda-friendly nation significant access to visas opens up a real risk of infiltration.
This DP World phenomenon is interesting; it shows that many conservatives are as hyper-aware of bigotry abroad as many on the far left appear to be domestically.
The UAE isn’t an Al Qaeda friendly nation. They’ve given the U.S. more access, and done more to help the U.S. in it’s actions against Al Qaeda than any other nation in the region. The UAE government is U.S. friendly, and is working AGAINST Al Qaeda, not the other way around. There have been some Al Qaeda activities inside the UAE, but, there have also been Al Qaeda activities inside the U.S., that doesn’t mean that the U.S. is an Al Qaeda friendly nation either. Your characterization of the UAE as an “Al Qaeda friendly nation” is absurd.
Code’s argument still doesn’t hold weight. Yes, it’s possible that Al Qaeda could infiltrate through visas issued to the UAE. They could infiltrate through visas issued to ANY middle eastern nation, and through quite a few (like Russia) that aren’t in the middle east. Does that mean we should deny work, student, or other visas to any nation that Al Qaeda has operated within because they open up a real risk of infiltration?
And the “hyper-aware of bigotry” crack? What conservatives are aware of is that it makes it much easier to prevent further Al Qaeda activity in this country if we have the cooperation of governments in the region that Al Qaeda primarily operates. And that cooperation could dissappear if we allow those who are trying to make political hay over this issue, like the Democrat Party, the ability to enforce double-standards on Muslim companies and nations, standards that other companies and countries aren’t held to. And that is likely to have a lot more detrimental effect on this country’s ability to prevent further terrorist attacks on our soil than the possibility that a terrorist sympathizer could infiltrate through the employees of DP World that would be working in this country, employees that are almost certain to be intensely scrutinized because of the bruhaha over this issue. The “risk of infiltration” is extremely minimal.
Actually, I hate to say it like this, but I don’t care if it is UAE or Isreal or England. No foriegn government should be in control of US soil. Sorry if that sounds bigotted, or anything, but it is the truth of the matter.
Let us ignore the fact that the Coast Guard will be the ones blamed if anything goes wrong. We will also ignore the fact that the UAE was complicit in giving money to at least two of the terrorist that were involved with 9/11. Lastly, we will ignore the fact the UAE blocked our attempts prior to the attack, to track the money that they were providing to the afore-mentioned terrorists.
I can’t think of a single reason that they shouldn’t be allowed to have holdings here. If we ignore everything else. Then again, all things being equal I would rather be in Philly. (for the few that get the referance)
Oh, one other thing, please refrain from the attacks onthe Democratic party when they try to do something about national security. You don’t get to have it both ways. You can either say that they don’t do anything or that they do too much, but you can’t say both. Long ago, in a post (or personal conversation that you and I somethimes have) far, far away, imp, you mentioned that the Demo’s don’t really do anything for national security, other than try to take away your guns. You can’t say now that they are trying to enforce a double-standardnow, cause they didn’t have a standard to begin with.
As I said when I heard about this, it just seems like a bad Guinness commercial.
“And I thought of a way to give our ports to a country that won’t have to answer to us in any way, shape, form, or fashion.”
“Give away our ports?…. Brilliant!”
“Brilliant!”
Sorry, you’re wrong. Money moved through UAE banks, it wasn’t provided to terrorists by the UAE. And the UAE had a policy of not providing info to anyone about their banks, JUST LIKE THE SWISS DO TODAY. Again, you can’t really hang much on the UAE that you can’t hang on the Swiss, and I don’t see anyone trumpeting that the Swiss are supporting terrorism.
And then you start peddling bullshit about what I supposedly said to you in personal conversations? I never said the Dems didn’t do anything about national security, I said that there was a PERCEPTION that they were weak on National Security, and that PERCEPTION is what lost them the election (along with John Kerry being a complete and total tool). Don’t call me up once “because you want to know my opinions” and then lie about what I said.
The Democrat Party is trying to create a double standard for the sole purpose of trying to gain a political advantage, at the EXPENSE of our national security. I don’t care if you don’t want someone to talk about your precious Democrats, that is exactly what they are doing. They, nor you, said jack or shit when companies owned by the governments of Venezuela, Singapore, and China bought ports all over the U.S. Now, when a company owned by the UAE wants to buy a few ports, they’re up in arms, because they think being up in arms about this will improve their image. Never mind that screwing over this ports deal could significantly damage our relationship with the UAE, reducing our capability to get intelligence on Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations from one of the nations that’s in the best position to provide that intelligence. That loss would be FAR more damaging than any potential dangers from letting the UAE company buy these ports. And yet, the Democrats are more than willing to trade that away just so that they can gain a political advantage?
Don’t feed me more of your idiot party’s bullshit about how they’re remotely interested in National Security, because this proves that they’re more concerned about their own political advantage than preserving our ability to get the intelligence that is necessary to prevent further terrorist attacks.
What’s a “Democrat Party,” anyway? It sounds a lot like an “Age of Terror.” Oh yeah, it’s another vapid right-wing rhetorical turn.
Man, that last post is long on invective and short an anything resembling substance.
Google “UAE links al qaeda” and see all the stuff that turns up. You say the only link the UAE has to Al Qaeda was that money passed through UAE banks. The evidence disagrees, and pounding your shoe on the table doesn’t change anything.
Speaking personally, I didn’t know that most of our port operations are owned by firms connected firectly to foreign governments. This is something that I believe we ought to re-evaluate seriously. Such ownership may be a really bad idea. In similar vein, since 9/11, I’ve become much more open to really revamping border security.
You ascribe motives to the Democratic Party based on your own prejudices. Your shrillness implies that cognitive dissonance is setting in – it’s increasingly obvious to every sane person that the Republican Party has fucked our national security up by the numbers, by any metric.
So yell and scream, dude. Every shrill iteration of “Democrats just want political advantage” really just seem to illustrate exactly what the Republican Party has done since 9/11 dropped the mother of all Christmas presented into their laps.
The Republicans used 9/11 to bypass Afghanistan and sell us Iraq “Smoking gun! Mushroom cloud! Liberators! Pay for itself!” They used it to smear distinguished veterans (Max Cleland, John Kerry) and to stifle dissent.
Those chicken are coming home to roost. The right has used national security as a club for more than 4 years now, and now it’s clear that they used it to clobber themselves.
So I’ll gladly spare you my “idiot part’s bullshit” if you spare me yours. And if you even want to open up the can of the President’s domestic spying program, oh dude, bring it.
But quit pounding the table, little man. Nobody’s intimidated.
Dude, I’m not arguing with you that the Republicans have dropped the fucking ball. Iraq was a mistake, they knew it was a mistake before going in, but they thought they could make it work, regardless. Stupid, and it’s cost a lot of lives and will continue to do so, because we’re stuck there now unless we really want to screw things up. Who said the Republicans weren’t idiots too?
Yes, there were all kinds of things that Al Qaeda was doing in the UAE before 9/11. So were virtually every shady group in the world, and many still are. That’s largely because of the nature of the UAE, specifically, Dubai. It’s a modern-day Casablanca. It’s a very free port and a very free market, all kinds of things go through there, and have for decades since before the British surrendered control of it to the Emir. That’s precisely why it’s such a valuable intelligence resource now. If you can’t understand that, then you’re simply not paying attention. Or, more likely, you’re trying to shift attention away from the reality of this situation to make your party of choice look better when they’re trying to use this situation to gain political advantage at the cost of our relationship with the UAE, which would significantly hinder our intelligence-gathering abilities. That’s much more dangerous to our national security than DP World, a company which has passed all of the security screenings we’ve done, buying a number of ports in the U.S.
80% of the ports in the U.S. are owned by foreign companies. Many of these are owned, in full, or in part, by foreign governments, such as the Venezuelan, Chinese, and Singaporean governments. These purchases were made and approved under Democrat and Republican administrations, a fact which you and the members of your party conveniently ignore. They never had a problem with it until now, when a company owned by the UAE wants to buy some of these ports. If we say no, even though their company has passed the same scrutiny that everyone else has, when we’ve allowed companies owned by China, Venezuela, and Singapore to do the same without even a mention, what do you think the UAE is going to tell us when we ask them for intelligence on Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations?
This is a serious issue. Maybe we shouldn’t be letting foreign companies, particularly those owned by foreign governments, manage or own ports in the United States. But, at this point, U.S. companies don’te even have the resources to manage all the ports in the U.S. And denying this sale to DP World, when there is no real reason other than they are owned by the Emir of Dubai, could significantly harm our intelligence-gathering capabilities.
I’m not pounding the table, I’m pointing out that the Democrats are endangering our national security by potentially harming our relationship with the UAE, which would do much greater harm to our national security than allowing DP World to buy these ports. For what? To make a few political points.
So, excuse me if I don’t swallow the line of bullshit that you and the rest of the Democrats are squeezing out about being “concerned about this situation”. Where was the concern when China, Venezuela, and Singapore bought ports in the U.S.? Where was the concern when 80% of the ports in the U.S. were bought by foreign companies? Where was the concern when U.S. companies lost the capability to even manage all of our own ports? And yet, you’re all of a sudden terribly concerned about the national security problems that might be presented if DP World bought a few of these ports, a company which has passed the same security screening that every other foreign company has been subjected to before buying ports in the U.S.? Bullshit.
And if you’re going to call me names, do it to my face, not cowardly hiding behind a computer screen. Little man, indeed.
Man, what you’re saying is that you agree with me, if you’ve been reading my posts. You say a lot of the same things I just did – I admitted that I had no idea that so many of our port operations where owned by foreign governments. I admitted that gives me pause. I admitted that we should give that a serious re-evaluation.
And I’m not even a partisan Democrat. I’ve voted for Republicans; albeit, not since I moved out of New England…no way I’ll vote for some Missouri Christofascist, but that’s not important.
Like I said, I had no idea that we lost our ability to operate our own ports. I am seriously troubled by this, just like I am seriously troubled by the decline in our industrial base.
But I totally resent your implication that being concerned now is just taking advantage of an opportunity to score political points. Hey, I didn’t know we had this problem. If I had any Democratic representation in the US government at all, I’d be asking why they didn’t know – but I don’t. Maybe you can point to a timeline or some history about when and how this came about?
It really doesn’t look like DP World went through the requited vetting procedure, but that’s secondary. This problem opened up my eyes to what I think MIGHT BE a real problem. Isn’t that a good thing?
I want this examined. I want it examined honestly and competently. Is that too much to ask? I want to examine it without having my motives questioned, especially not questioned by this lying, weaselly, hypocritical, chickenhawk party.
You can call it a line of bullshit, but what it is, at least in my case, is an eye-opener.
As for the UAE as a partner in this “war,” either they’re going to be or they’re not. If what you’re saying is that if we don’t sell them operating rights to 21 ports, then they won’t help us, well, maybe they need to be re-evaluated as a partner. I’m sure there are other carrots we can offer besides port operations IF that’s a security risk. You’re smart enough to see that, especially since it seems like you agree with all my points.
But lay off the “political points” thing – neither party has an iota of moral high ground to stand on. What we have got to re-learn how to do is work together to examine and solve problems. End of story.
You and I are in agreement about most of the points on this issue. I’m not sure whether it’s a good, bad, or indifferent issue whether foreign companies own ports in the U.S., even most of the U.S. ports. I don’t think that just because a company is owned by people outside of the U.S. or even another country’s government, that necessarily means that company or it’s employees are interested in harming the U.S. or it’s citizens. But, it’s certainly something that should be examined further, and expecially, the screening process and security measures we’re taking to make sure that this isn’t the case.
I don’t think wanting those things examined is bullshit. But most Democrats and quite a few Republicans aren’t just saying they want these things examined. They’re saying that they want the ports deal rejected because it’s DP World wanting to buy the ports, when, in reality, DP World is no more of a security risk than the companies that currently operate ports in this country that are owned by China and Venezuela. That, I think, is a line of BS.
As for the Republicans being a lying, weaselly, hypocritical, chickenhawk party, I’ll agree with you. But I’ll also say that the Democrats are just as lying, weaselly, hypocritical, and chickenhawk. They’ve undermined the Constitution and Bill of Rights just as much as the Republicans have, moreso in many cases, and are just as much the liers and hypocrites that the Republicans are.
Maybe we could do without the liers, hypocrites, weasels, and chickenhawks, regardless of their party.
I had no intention of lying about what you said. I stated that you said the do nothing for national security. You say that you said they are PERCIEVED as doing nothing. My mistake. However, I will also point out that given that in this time perception is what is veiwed as fact, (the perception that Iraq was the bad guy, for instance) we must also look at what those perceptions lead us to believe.
Once again, I do apologize for misquoting you. That was not my intention.
I will, though, agree with Arr^2 about one thing. If we have to sell our ports to them in order to get them to be our friends (esp. after Daddy Bush sold DP world his company) maybe we should re-evaluate them on the whole.
While I understand that you, imp, do your best to have no political leanings toward one party or the other, you have for quite a while now been attacking the Democrats for trying to make political capital based on tragedies. I think that you are partially right. However, I think also that since they (the Demo’s) are not permitted to have hearings into anything as the Repubs say no, they kind of have to, at least at this point, make it very public so that the Repubs can’t just sweep it under the table.
Not trying to fight here. Just pointing out what seems to me to be obvious.
I don’t think that they are capitalizing on tragedy as much as they are fighting the battles they can win.
The Dems can’t win in the capital. Not right now. They don’t have the numbers. And every time it seems like the more moderate Reps will be reasonable, they suddenly (the moderate Reps) become silent.
What they can do, though, is see to it that people are aware of what is happening. Get things into news, talk about it. Pundit about it. Make people aware. When voting time comes around, the hope is that people vote based on information, not just on party lines.
It is a slow victory. And yes, the tactic can be cheap.
As for me, I stand beside my WTF? I wasn’t aware, because frankly it isn’t reported on, that anyone other that the US controlled US ports. I know, silly me. I was operating under the assumption that you wouldn’t be as stupid as to allow a foreign power, be they governments or companies, to run your ports. I was always under the impression that foreign operators had a presence in ports for trade, but nothing more than that. That port operations as a whole are handled outside the US… disturbing.
And no, it isn’t just UAE, though I do find this whole thing shady at best. There are too many questions surrounding this whole deal to make me comfortable with it. Even beyond past terrorist ties. But I have a problem with anyone else controlling our ports. I think that it makes you vulnerable. In the case of it being an ally, what happens when the ally slips up and something gets through and something bad happens?
My unhappiness with this doesn’t stop at UAE.
I’m not saying that we have to sell our ports to places like the UAE to encourage them be our friends. What I am saying is that when the UAE comes to us and says, “We’d like to buy your ports”, and we say “No.” and they say “Why, our company has gone through the same security screenings, and even greater scrutiny, than the Chinese, the Venezuelans, and the Singaporeans to whom you sold your other ports?”, we’d damn well have a better answer than “Um, you’re Arabs.”, at least, if we ever want to get intelligence from them ever again, intelligence that could prove to be very important to our national security.
I don’t want the Republicans to “sweep this under the table”, I think that there should be some serious consideration of whom we allow to purchase or manage our ports, and what kind of screening procedure we put them through before they do so. That isn’t what a great many of the Democrats are saying, though. They’re saying that we shouldn’t allow this sale to DP World, end of story, because they are a national security risk, when DP World is no more of a national security risk than companies owned by China or Venezuela. They’re ignoring that offending the UAE by treating them differently than other nations that we’ve allowed to by our ports, rejecting an Arab nation because they’re Arabs, can have immediate effects in denying us vital intelligence, and long-reaching effects by showing other Muslim countries that we talk a good line, but when it comes down to it, we’re going to treat them differently than we do others. That does far more to harm our national security than allowing DP World to buy a few ports.
Underscoring my point is this quote from Senator Frank Lautenberg (Democrat, New Jersey) from a rally held in New Jersey this week:
“We wouldn’t transfer the title to the devil; we’re not going to transfer it to Dubai.”
This is EXACTLY the kind of thing I’m talking about.
We can no doubt do without any and all liars, weasels, hypocrites, and chickenhawks of any stripe.
But Jesus, who’d run the country?
You are aware, right, that the fight against this is coming from Dems and Reps? There is currently in the works a bill that would keep any foreign power/company from controlling port operations. Personally, I think it is a good idea. It is being headed by a Republican.
In fact, I’ve heard about as much against this from Republicans as from Democrats.
Source? Headline News this morning on Robin and Company.
Just pointing it out because I’m tired of hearing “Democrat! Democrat! Democrat!” about this when the opposition to this is coming from both sides.
The problem is that no one is really looking and seeing if it is a problem if foreign companies or companies owned in whole or part by foreign companies managing or owning ports is a bad idea or not. It may sound so on the surface, but that doesn’t mean it actually is so. All that I’ve heard, from the Democrats (who are the majority of those hammering this issue, and who, I think, are doing it mostly to gain political advantage) and Republicans (who are in the minority on this issue, but those who are hammering this issue are probably doing so for political advantage as well) are ignorant, bigoted statements like the statement from Frank Lautenberg above, that illustrate a poor understanding of the facts surrounding this issue.
Also, realize, DP World already owns half of the management contract and is doing half of the management of the ports they want to manage fully through this deal. They’ve stated that these ports will be managed through an independent branch of DP World headed by the London manager that’s managing the ports right now. So nothing whatsoever is likely to change if this deal goes through.
“They’ve stated that these ports will be managed through an independent branch of DP World headed by the London manager that’s managing the ports right now. So nothing whatsoever is likely to change if this deal goes through.”
And of course, a corporation would never change its plans or, heaven forbid, lie.
From the department of “those damn democrats playing politics with national security,” from today’s NY Times:
“Representative Jerry Lewis, the California Republican who is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said he would use a committee hearing on Wednesday to add a provision preventing the deal from moving forward.
Mr. Lewis said he would add the provision to an essential emergency spending measure that provides money for the war in Iraq and for Hurricane Katrina recovery. “It is my intention to lay the foundation to block the deal,” he said.
“Our public is very concerned about a foreign country, in this case specifically a foreign country from the Middle East, having a major role in our ports,” Mr. Lewis said.
The effort was endorsed by Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, who has rarely broken with Mr. Bush.”
Again, if there are real reasons to block the DP World deal, I’d agree with it. But “this is a foreign country, specifically a foreign company from the Middle East” isn’t nearly a good enough reason.
And again, DP World currently has a half interest in all of these ports, and shares the management responsibilities already. Where were all the people who are complaining when they bought the half interest that they currently have?
Actually, even though this thread is no most likely forgotten given that the deal fell through, I would like to make a brief case. The Demos put foward 6 bills to increase port security since 9/11. All have bee voted down by Repubs. All. So 6 times in 5 years the Demos have called for more security and greater control over what goes in and out of our ports, yet the Repubs (the National Security party) has voted against it overwhelmingly.
Just food for thought.