|
|
Post by CommonSense on Feb 22, 2006 17:26:18 GMT -8
See my post on THC.
|
|
|
|
Post by tits on Feb 22, 2006 17:34:55 GMT -8
The sad thing is that these people do not understand that their actions feed into our paranoia.
Arabs see phobia behind US uproar over ports deal
DUBAI (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers' strident opposition to a Dubai company controlling major seaports reflects a Western phobia of Arabs which could scare off other Middle East investors, Arab analysts said.
|
|
|
|
Post by LorSpi on Feb 22, 2006 17:53:51 GMT -8
Another POV
**************************************
Geopolitical Diary: The UAE and U.S. Ports
A British company with the quaint Victorian name of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. was purchased last week by Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates,
at a price topping $6 billion. From a geopolitical point of view, this is just another corporate acquisition, made interesting by the fact that it clearly involves a cash-flush oil producer that is diversifying its holdings.
The story has one minor wrinkle, however. Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation is deeply involved in operating the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. So, to put it differently, an Arab and Muslim country has taken control of key operations at some of the most important ports in the United States. As Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) put it, "The question that needs to be answered is whether or not they can be trusted to operate our ports in this post-9/11 world." The Bush administration's view, as expressed by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, is: "We make sure there are assurances in place, in general, sufficient to satisfy us that the deal is appropriate from a national security standpoint."
The issue comes down to this. The UAE is an Arab and Muslim country. The government of the UAE is about as pro-American as you can get in that part of the world. Certainly, there are UAE citizens who are jihadists -- one of the Sept. 11 hijackers, Marwan al-Shehi, was from the UAE. At the same time, the government has a security agreement with the United States, and extensive commercial relations tie the two together. The UAE tries to be a kind of Switzerland in the Middle East, focusing on business and trying to be the commercial gateway to the region.
If the United States can't do business with the UAE, then the United States cannot do business anywhere in the Islamic world. The problem Washington faces is this: On the one hand, the administration has been
criticized for having a simplistic, monochromatic view of Islam, and of making war against Islam in general. But on the other hand, when the administration draws distinctions between governments within the Muslim world, it gets hammered over threats to U.S. security. Somebody has got to straighten this out.
Now, the problem might simply be that a UAE company will be managing the U.S. ports. That is not a trivial concern. But viewed another way, a British company previously was managing the ports, and there are plenty of jihadists traveling on British passports these days who are at least as dangerous as anyone in the UAE. It is not clear to us that these ports were any safer when operated by a British company than they would be under the UAE.
If Washington rejects the UAE's ability to operate commercial concerns in the United States, then the question is going to be: Precisely what are the benefits of siding with the United States? The United States
might draw a line saying that Muslim governments can do business with the United States but not control critical infrastructure. Nevertheless, two geopolitical questions remain. First, how does Washington reward countries that sided with the United States in the jihadist war? And second, if there are no rewards, what are the benefits of such alignment?
There is no question that the UAE does not run a fully capable counterintelligence system. There are certainly jihadists who might slip into the operation. But no country runs a fully capable system, and jihadists could slip in anywhere. There is an argument to be made
that in a time of war, the United States must limit its commercial relations with any Muslim country. If that is the policy, then someone should state it. If the U.S. strategy is divide the Muslim world and reward those who side with the United States with commercial relations, then state that.
One way or another, a decision has to be made.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Feb 22, 2006 19:08:04 GMT -8
The bigger question is why we have no American companies capable of doing this work.
Why are we outsourcing to the PRC, UK, OR, the UAE?
In the last 30 years I've watched most of the industrial might that won WWII exported to the third world.
Frankly, i'm sick of it.
I need to see some compelling reason to continue doing it.
As of now, it appears that we are so freaking bankrupt that we cannot function without a constant infusion of foreign investment to balance our deficit.
|
|
|
|
Post by MARIO on Feb 22, 2006 20:39:17 GMT -8
I agree with you, Matt.
There's nothing to really worry about here. Responsibility for security will still reside with US authorities. And it would be an extremely egregious message to send to one of our stalwart allies in the Middle East. I could appreciate some of the concerns if we were talking about Saudi Arabia or the like. But we're not.
|
|
|
|
Post by MARIO on Feb 22, 2006 20:40:22 GMT -8
The bigger question is why we have no American companies capable of doing this work. Why are we outsourcing to the PRC, UK, OR, the UAE? In the last 30 years I've watched most of the industrial might that won WWII exported to the third world. Frankly, i'm sick of it. I need to see some compelling reason to continue doing it. As of now, it appears that we are so freaking bankrupt that we cannot function without a constant infusion of foreign investment to balance our deficit. Imagine that! |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Feb 22, 2006 21:30:42 GMT -8
Halliburton's fine with me.
I hope all of you who support the deal understand that this is not a private business but a state-owned subsidiary of Emirates.
Please tell me again how this is a good deal for the US.
I must have missed the memo.
|
|
|
|
Post by jfree on Feb 22, 2006 22:03:42 GMT -8
I dont think anyone really thinks it is a good deal for the US. However the UAE company bought the contract from a British company, I havent seen anywhere where they mention if there even were any American companies bidding on the contract.
I dont like UAE buying the contract, but to deny them it simply because of the race/religion of the country would send a devistating message to Arabs about the US. This is certainly a hard one to call, perhaps it should have been like TV&Radio where no foreign company should be able to buy into it, but its a little late for that. If they let them continue, I hope that the gov puts a few extra watch dogs on the docks...
|
|
|
|
Post by oneifbyland on Feb 22, 2006 22:15:56 GMT -8
Halliburton's fine with me. I hope all of you who support the deal understand that this is not a private business but a state-owned subsidiary of Emirates. Please tell me again how this is a good deal for the US. I must have missed the memo. >> Ot certainly seems like too crucial to mess with a ME company. I don't believe key people didn't know about it in time to stop/delay it. Imagine if on September 12, 2001 someone told you this would be happening. |
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Feb 23, 2006 6:17:52 GMT -8
Halliburton's fine with me. I hope all of you who support the deal understand that this is not a private business but a state-owned subsidiary of Emirates. Please tell me again how this is a good deal for the US. I must have missed the memo. I can argue both sides of this issue. It's a fairly strange juxtaposition to be in. However, if the UAE wanted to smuggle weapons and terrorists in they could do it for a whole lot less than $6,800 Million ($6.8 Billion) by simply coming across our southern border. If they make that kind of investment here, wouldn't it make sense that they would want to protect it by being as secure as possible on their end? It seems to me that they would suddenly be given an incentive to give a shit about our security. Their role is simply to be a commercial administrator. They're not going to be in charge of port security. They're not going to be running the cranes and fork lifts. In reality, the scary part of OUR port security is knowing what happens at the PORT of DEPARTURE (where the damn things are loaded to begin with) and we have little or no control over that (never have). They would now have a reason to keep it as safe as possible. Moreover, we might need a friend in the area (to use their airstrips) when we go kick Iran's ass. Look, I can come up with just as many talking points AGAINST the sale as well. It's just that I don't think it's an open and shut case to SQUASH the deal. |
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Feb 23, 2006 6:30:51 GMT -8
And another thing... WHen I see the Demonkraps stand up and rant about the "security issues" in this deal I want to laugh. They tried to kill the Patriot Act. They want terrorists in this country to be able to freely communicate with their homies abroad. They have no interest in securing our borders. AND NOW, all of a sudden, they're concerned about our port security?  Gimme a freakin' break. To them it's just a possible way to make Bush look bad and I don't think it's going to work any better than anything else they have tried. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Feb 23, 2006 6:59:02 GMT -8
OTOH, Jimmy Carter is in favor of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Feb 23, 2006 7:13:32 GMT -8
OTOH, Jimmy Carter is in favor of it. I assure you 101, that point is not lost on me. It's at the top of my list of reasons to NOT do the deal. However, not ALL Islamic countries are our enemies. Turkey, for instance, has been a long time ally. We based attack aircraft out of there in both Gulf One and Gulf Two. I spent a year of my life there during the Cold War. Look, we know that Arabs lie like rugs. However, the incentive for profit is a very powerful motivator. It might just turn out that doing this deal with the UAE would have the effect of INCREASING our security rather than threatening it. |
|
|
|
Post by LorSpi on Feb 23, 2006 7:13:33 GMT -8
I can argue both sides of this issue. It's a fairly strange juxtaposition to be in. However, if the UAE wanted to smuggle weapons and terrorists in they could do it for a whole lot less than $6,800 Million ($6.8 Billion) by simply coming across our southern border. If they make that kind of investment here, wouldn't it make sense that they would want to protect it by being as secure as possible on their end? It seems to me that they would suddenly be given an incentive to give a shit about our security. Their role is simply to be a commercial administrator. They're not going to be in charge of port security. They're not going to be running the cranes and fork lifts. In reality, the scary part of OUR port security is knowing what happens at the PORT of DEPARTURE (where the damn things are loaded to begin with) and we have little or no control over that (never have). They would now have a reason to keep it as safe as possible. Moreover, we might need a friend in the area (to use their airstrips) when we go kick Iran's ass. Look, I can come up with just as many talking points AGAINST the sale as well. It's just that I don't think it's an open and shut case to SQUASH the deal. In the end I agree with you. The US works - and is highly successful - because it is open. It has always gone after investors without regard to their religion, race and national origin. And our economy is the result. It is not about security - that is another sector. Not the unloading at ports. That is about longshoremen. Traffic of moving containers. The West coast has the big port. Who owns that? Anybody bothering to ask that question in all this brouhaha? Here's how I see it - no harm no foul. Other than ethnicity and religion, what's the issue? This company will be required to obey the law of the land - and that includes the hiring of women, Christians, Jews and anyone else. Japanese companies faced massive lawsuits when they tried to import their papa-san knows best type of management - and they paid out the largest amount in a sexual discrimination case in history as a result. The first time this company tries anything untoward - and folks will be watching - it will be be facing federal and civil charges. This media hype sounds more like baiting - race and religion. |
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Feb 24, 2006 16:37:43 GMT -8
The bigger question is why we have no American companies capable of doing this work. Why are we outsourcing to the PRC, UK, OR, the UAE? In the last 30 years I've watched most of the industrial might that won WWII exported to the third world. Frankly, i'm sick of it. I need to see some compelling reason to continue doing it. As of now, it appears that we are so freaking bankrupt that we cannot function without a constant infusion of foreign investment to balance our deficit. Imagine that! Actually there is one other though I can't remember the name off hand. But it lacks the money and scope to have bid for P&O, the deal went down for 4 or 5 Billion bucks. |
|
Gimme a freakin' break.