The president’s side on the ports issue
Powerline presents the administration’s case on the
ports issue. They make it sound quite reasonable, though I’m still not convinced. What had me flat on my back, metaphorically, was not so much the ports deal as the president’s open insinuation of racism against everyone who opposes the deal.
Mark P. writes:
Sure, nobody wants the United Arab Emirates deal to go through and most on the left and right are against it, but, really, what is the President supposed to do? How can he conceivably go against approving the ports deal? Consider the many problems with this issue.
First, it’s unclear what exactly the UAE is buying. Until this issue came up, I doubt most Americans were even aware that ports were run by private companies (after all, airports are not privately run.) Is the UAE buying a share in the port itself or in the management firm that runs the port? If it’s buying the firm, then how exactly does the firm earn its money? What operational control does the firm actually get over the port?
Second, it’s unclear exactly how a change in ownership of the British firm will affect the day to day operation of the ports. Presumably, port management is a heavily regulated business (judging by other transportation industries like airlines and overland freight.) Federal regulations and security measures would still need to be in place. Any management company would still need to follow these rules to the letter. Is it implied that a UAE company (which probably won’t have a single Muslim working in it) is somehow going to flout these rules?
Third, there is much talk about a security threat, but no one is explaining in concrete terms what exactly the security threat is. The implied scenario seems to center around someone in the UAE planting a nuke in a cargo container that could end up in New York. This is an entirely plausible scenario, but still…aren’t there cheaper and easier ways of doing this, ways that don’t cost $6.8 billion and that don’t leave the soon-to-be-ceasing-to-exist UAE fingerprints all over it? Why not pay $100 million to let a nuke in through some foreign port? Why not pay $500 million to attach it to the bottom of a cargo ship? Heck, with a billion dollars you could bribe some hippie, “a million Mogadishu’s”-type American right here in the states to row a nuke into New York harbor. What, then, is the security concern?
Fourth, it’s unclear how our government would deal with the political ramifications. The UAE is not officially on a list of terror-sponsoring states. It’s not Libya or Syria, nations for whom we have plausible reasons for denying trade. If we say “no” to the UAE, then how do we explain ourselves? Do we tell them we are concerned about terrorism, therefore implying that they are a terrorist state? Do we make up something more vague, therefore opening ourselves up to a different problem with another company that wants to buy this British firm? Do we put UAE on the state terror sponsorship list? If them, then do we do the same with Saudi Arabia? Yes, we know that, unofficially, all Muslim countries run on jihad against America, but how does this help the US make decisions through the normal, official channels?
As can be plainly seen, Bush is not entirely wrong letting this deal go through. Yes, we prevented China from acquiring an American oil company, but China was an easier case because of its own saber-rattling and military build-up…and even that was difficult. The UAE case is even harder still.
A reader writes:
Very pretty, but the Powerline tools are missing the Big Picture, as we men of affairs say. Mr. Anachronism has a simple criterion to apply to these matters, but in it’s way it’s larger and more sophisticated than the soothing blather they offer their mesmerized readers: if it hurts globalization, if it’s bad for multiculturalism, if it lacks the stench of liberalism, it’s well and very good. Why does America have any foreign companies running its ports (or “terminals” or whatever bureaucratic split-hair the Bush Misadministration prefers)? If this situation comes to a politically explosive head only when the Bush Misadministration tries to turn the ports over to some gang of oil ticks, Sir, make the most of it. It’s long past time that something exploded politically. Why does the U.S. have a Chinese company running some of the ports, can anyone justify that? Why is there no Southern Border anymore? Why are They outsourcing absolutely everything They can, even government operations? Why are airport screeners instructed to terrify little children while showing deference to sullen, sneering Musselmen? Mr. A is absolutely convinced that it is all of a piece, and if the place of the piece where we are able finally to get a little traction, a little revolt going, is this Dubai affair, well and good, we’d be fools not to grasp it and squeeze hard. The so-reasonable bureaucratic soporificisms about cooperation and agreements and responsibilities mean nothing, nothing whatsoever, they are only the oleaginous murmurings that grease our way down into the Pit. If Americans still want an America, they need to fight every battle they can against the dissolution of their Nation, and this is one of them. It can seem illogical to go after Dubai only if you are wearing big horse blinders, and moreover have interested reasons to want to be stupid.
Respectfully yours,
Mr. Anachronism
Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 23, 2006 06:30 AM | Send