Centerfield

We have to look at this economically. The UAE isn't going to spend billions on a commercial port just to blow it up. That country now has an economic interest in keeping those ports safe and productive.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be wary of what's going through those ports, including potentially dangerous people and materials. Then again, we should have tougher security standards on all our ports.

Let the deal go through. But we need to keep a close eye on what happens there.

Posted by: Staunch Moderate at February 21, 2006 06:11 PM

What Staunch said, and kudos to Bush for not backing down. Congress looks silly on this one.

I doubt there would be an uproar if the buyer was an Arab Christian, and think the objections would be muted if the buyer was an Indonesian Muslim.

Probably true from a Republican perspective, from a Democratic one I think to block the deal violates the very principles they supposedly stand for.... Just more evidence that the Democrats have no message or inner identity, and are desperate to convince the American people they can be trusted at the trigger.

I find it hilarious that those who defended Gore last week are now saying we should block this agreement. It seems their diplomatic priorities are half-assed at best.

Would the emirs of the UAE hire Israeli bodyguards?

Yeah, that's great, let's practice the same methods as Israel and Muslim nations in the Middle East, because they have worked so well for them.

Posted by: Mathew at February 21, 2006 06:55 PM

It's not the port that would be blown up. The fear is that a nuclear device smuggled through the port would be used to blow up New York or D.C.

Posted by: PatHMV at February 21, 2006 06:56 PM

The fear is that a nuclear device smuggled through the port would be used to blow up New York or D.C.

Still, the point is correct.

Posted by: Mathew at February 21, 2006 07:02 PM

The UAE is not a monolithic actor. True, the emirs are not going to blow up an asset they own. But if even 1 of 10 employees of their goverment is subversive to their interests, and sympathetic to Osama bin Laden, we could be in trouble.

I note that the Israeli raid on Entebbe airport in Uganda in 1976 was aided by the fact that an Israeli firm had constructed the airport, and had the design plans.

Posted by: rickheller at February 21, 2006 07:16 PM

But if even 1 of 10 employees of their goverment is subversive to their interests, and sympathetic to Osama bin Laden, we could be in trouble.

I get the general concern here, but isn't that the same argument that can be used to discriminate against Muslims, outright? Yes, we are talking ports here, but there isn't any substantial evidence that ANY of their employees sympathize with Bin Laden. I am not saying it isn't possible, but don't we need something more solid than "what if?"

Posted by: Mathew at February 21, 2006 07:43 PM

And answer me this, how do we determine that employees of American companies do not sympathize with Bin Laden? What exactly makes this deal different, other than the obvious Arabic connection? Aren't we painting our self into a corner if we make the decision to block the deal based on that fact alone? Free trade is free trade.

Posted by: Mathew at February 21, 2006 07:51 PM

I would say that for foreigners--and I'm not talking immigrants but people who actually live overseas--we do not need anything more solid than "what if?"

Muslims are the only ones who can join Al Qaeda. If a Muslim is an American citizen, our constitution requires us to give him/her the benefit of the doubt. If a Muslim is not a citizen but is in the United States legally, they do gain some of the protections of U.S. law.

But a Muslim in Dubai is not under U.S. jurisdiction, so I don't know how they could claim protection of U.S. law. There may be some treaties or international laws governing trade that might be applicable, but given how Arab countries boycott Israeli firms, I doubt they can claim a right they don't afford others.

Posted by: rickheller at February 21, 2006 07:57 PM

A little relevant factoid. We physically inspect maybe 5% of port shipments now, and that doesn't mean that we thoroughly inspect them. Dubai management neither materially increases nor decreases the risk of smuggled nukes--our best defense against such is technological sensor detection. The same (American) employees will still be doing the inbound inspections and working the ports. Before, the top-level corporate managers were in London. Now they'll be in Dubai. What diff?

But it's an election year.

Posted by: Tully at February 21, 2006 08:30 PM

You know, in this war, most of the people and especially probably most globalized companies in the region are naturally on our side.

IMHO, we should gain by showing we trust the natural majority of moderate Arabs. So I hope it goes through. As Tully says, we're already taking serious risks by being an open society with large trade volumes. And I rather suspect an eye WILL be kept on things.

Posted by: Jon Kay at February 21, 2006 09:49 PM

I had been skeptical of this deal when I first heard about it. But the President changed my mind with his forceful response. He said, in effect, "I'm running a complex foreign policy designed to show the world that we are at war not with all Muslims but with a group of extremist fanatics who have hijacked the religion. I can't do that if we say to a country, we're sorry, but you're a Muslim Arab country, so you're not good enough to buy our ports. British foreign owners are ok, but not you Arabs."

Now, maybe we should essentially declare that we are at war, economic, political, or militarily, with the Arab, Muslim world. Or maybe we should declare declare that ports and airports are national assets for which foreign ownership is not allowed. But until we do, we should hesitate before condemning this transaction.

We should not tell the Arab world: we want you to diversify your economy, to expand your horizons, to engage in the world in a peaceful manner. But not here. We don't want your investment. We don't trust you. Go somewhere else.

While we should be very careful dealing with that part of the world, we cannot afford to send that message.

Posted by: PatHMV at February 21, 2006 09:56 PM

A little relevant factoid. We physically inspect maybe 5% of port shipments now, and that doesn't mean that we thoroughly inspect them. Dubai management neither materially increases nor decreases the risk of smuggled nukes--our best defense against such is technological sensor detection. The same (American) employees will still be doing the inbound inspections and working the ports. Before, the top-level corporate managers were in London. Now they'll be in Dubai. What diff?

Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE.

When the US government was investigating the funding for 9/11, the UAE banks were running funds through--and refused to allow the US government to investigate those banks.

UAE also sent shipments of nuclear components to Iran.

This is about our port security. Do folks here really not see the fundamental difference between a company associated with our closest ally--and one associated with a government so closely associated with 9/11?

Would we allow the Secret Service to outsource the President's security to Dubai? Absolutely not. Why should we allow them to outsource our port security to them?

Posted by: carla at February 21, 2006 09:58 PM

For a pretty good look at the anti-deal argument and some solid links on security issues, Michelle Malkin has some good info.

Posted by: PatHMV at February 21, 2006 10:25 PM

This is racism and fear-mongering at its worse. And on top of that it is politics at its typical worse. Clearly those Democrats who object, if given enough time will say " Hey what a minute we're supposed to be the party of fairness and be able to look beyond the color of one's skin or nation of origin".

Note, Dems initially raised the issues but have now (smartly) grown silent as the Republican leadership piles on. "When your opposition is publically destroying itself, say nothing".

I'm sure prominent Republicans are saying in private "But Mr. President this looks bad for us...in an election year". And rightly so the President has stated he's looking at the long view. Wow, statesmanship, what a concept. Debate all we want regarding the security of our ports but this has little to do with that. Little different from Pakstani's protesting the Dutch government for something a Dutch paper did. (I guess all Arabs are in cohoots).

If there was an episode that demonstrates "lame duckery" it is this.

PS Sorry for the rant, this just digusts me.

Posted by: c3 at February 21, 2006 11:24 PM

Actually, Chris, this is not that new, I don't think. Despite the left's belief that supporters of the war in Iraq and other of the President's policies are simply Bush apologists standing by their man at all costs, the conservative establishment have been very quick to oppose him whenever they feel he has strayed from the party line. Most Republicans hate his immigration reform proposals, and many bloggers say so regularly. And look at the Harriet Meiers nomination.

Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 01:00 AM

Pat,

I completely agree, but would add that while I am not one one of the cultural conservatives, I think the reason they are so quick to take issue with the President is that they feel that he used the socons to get elected and has subsequently "abandoned" their cause.

In their world, the President chose to expend enormous amounts of his political capital on the tax cut, the War in Iraq, and Social Security Reform (issues with which they are lukewarm about). But when it came to their issues-- abortion, gay rights, immigration, et. al.-- they feel as if he has systematically betrayed them, nominating the likes of John Roberts and Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court (they would have preferred a Janice Rogers Brown), and refusing outright to even consider their nativistic brand of immigration reform.

What adds insult to injury, in their minds, is that (again, in their world) they are primarily (and perhaps even solely) responsible for getting him elected and re-elected in the first place. They feel that it was their voters, their issues that defined the election, and that he thereby owes them. Instead, he has chosen to "forsake" them for the economic conservatives (with whom they have an uneasy alliance, at best).

Now every sub-constituency feels as if they were the ones to swing an election, and every sub-constituency also has a tendency to want to believe they have been "victimized" (the ironical height of which was probably the 60's campus revolts in Berkeley, where the children of America's most privileged class somehow felt that they had been "oppressed"), so I'm not necessarily saying that this is true in fact. But I am saying that in the minds of social/cultural conservatives, President Bush has continuously (and frequently) abandoned them, and so they don't feel they owe him the loyalty that his followers believe he deserves.

His liberal critics can't see this-- they prefer to view some sort of monolithic conservatism, perhaps because it provides them with the opportunity to "chant"-- but because of that, they consistently fail to make inroads into the Republican base by exploiting these fault-lines and fissures. That's unfortunate for them, because they're missing their opportunity to (at best) build a governing coalition and (at worst) "divide and conquer" the Republicans. Here the parallel could be the American foreign policy establishment that made a similar mistake viewing some fictional "monolithic Communism" during the Cold War, that left them incapable of exploting numerous opportunities against the Soviets-- until, that is, the ever-shrewd Nixon and Kissinger came to the forefront. Perhaps the Democratic problem is they lack their Nixon/Kissinger...

Posted by: Bobby at February 22, 2006 03:18 AM

You know, I keep thinking this over in my head, and while I have concerns about the possible 9/11 connection with the UAE, and the air of secrecy involved, I'm finding it real hard to get that upset over this. I'm really thinking on this, and this might not be as crazy as it seems. I really don't know all the facts, so I can't make a definitive judgment, but I think Pat (and Bush himself) has a point when he talks about not alienating moderate Muslims.

I think many of the Islamophobes on the far-right are against this for the obvious reasons. For them, there's no such thing as moderate Islam.

I say investigate this further.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at February 22, 2006 03:59 AM

I think what needs to be examined is what has it meant that British-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation to have been "directing commercial operations" at the respective ports, and what does it mean for Dubai Ports World to now be "in charge of those operations"?

If being "in charge" has been consigned to commercial (and not security) matters, then this might very well be much ado about nothing. In Afghanistan, we had locals "in charge" of lots of commercial activities on some US and Coalition military compounds-- because it had absolutely nothing to do with our security, it was never (ever) an issue. Is this something similar? Or does being in charge of "commercial operations" automatically translate to have control over security operations?

According to a State Department spokesman, Adam Ereli:

"Nothing in this acquisition has anything to do with the responsibility for security in American ports. . . That remains very firmly in the hands of the Department of Homeland Security. What we're talking about is the management of some port operations."

I've emailed a couple of my friends' fathers-- one who was a pretty high-ranking official (a Clinton appointee) in what is now the Customs and Border Protection, and the other who works for a conglomerate in Dubai-- to see if they can shed any detail on this for me, and I'll pass on anything I hear.

Posted by: Bobby at February 22, 2006 04:33 AM

Bobby, I agree completely. I have regularly made the point (often to deaf ears) that President Bush is not nearly as (socially) conservative as the left fears him to be. When you look at his actions rather than his rhetoric, a fairly clear pattern of high-level lip service emerges. Yeah, he condemned removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, but what did he do, other than sign a Congressional bill passed by an overwhelming majority, to stop it? He never sent the FBI or DHH staff in to check things out for themselves. And sure, he opposed "gay marriage", and ran strongly against the courts imposing such social change on the rest of the country. And he gave some lip service to a federal constitutional amendment on the subject. But how much political capital did he spend on it? And een in the debates he expressed support for civil unions that would be marriages in all but name. Lots of words of support for socons, but actual deeds and expenditure of political capital? Not nearly that much.

Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 08:19 AM

Thanks Bobby. Good points.

I saw this "story" a couple days ago, and decided not to make a post about it until a bunch more substantive info came up. Here's what I noticed right away. I saw basically the same article in 2 places. In both instances it was fairly lengthy, 12 to 15 paragraphs at least. But all of the "info" in the story was about political fighting and what various peoples opinions were. What was missing was virtually ALL of the information I'd want to know about in order to judge whether I needed to be truly concerned.

That means that it was basically all about opinions and fears. No one has given me a single, concrete, specific, substantive reason to be worried. I have not read any description detailing even a single change that will result due to this sale that warrants concern.

So in the absence of any of that sort of crucially relevant and conspicuously absent information, I went ahead and thought about it on my own:

Is this company going to fire 100s of American port workers and replace them all with UAE workers? Unlikely, I thought.

Are there any expected substantive changes to day-to-day operations besides new people signing the paychecks? Seemed sensible to assume no, at least until its reported otherwise. Wait and see.

Is this company for some reason not subject to, say, collective bargaining with the longshoreman's unions? VERY unlikely, I thought.

Are these ports little disneylandish private fiefdoms, or are they part public, and at least subject to oversight by local, state, and or federal agents? VERY likely subject to government security oversight, I thought. At a level similar to all other similarly sensitive risk areas, unless it can be shown otherwise.

Is it reasonable to assume that the federal government was simply asleep at the switch and that this sale was NOT scrutinized? My rule is that such gross malfeasance shouldn't be suggested simply because the first-glance unexamined appearance allows such a hypothesis to be plausible. Find some actual evidence to support malfeasance, or keep your unfounded accusations to yourself.

Is it sensible to think that the admin led by the man who has staked his entire reputation on the conduct of the war against terrorism is going to rubber stamp dangerous transfers because he and his whole team are simply asleep at the switch, too busy looting the government and playing favorites with wealthy friends to manage their responsibilites? Not outside of tinfoilhatland, I thought.

2 days later this has blown into a real fearfest, and I'm still waiting for all that substantive info which will help me decide how concerned I need to be. My wife was a little bent about this last night, and I had to de-brief here by stressing "what do we really know of the details of this? Shouldn't we wait to find out that there's a good reason to be worried, insetad of assuming that arab boogeymen are plotting to buy up our ports to attack us?" Thankfully, I was able to talk her down.

The thing that troubles me most is how prone people are to letting their fears get ahead of them, and how willing they are to express righteous opinions without asking important questions and waiting for the answers that would allow them to have an informed opinion.

People have obviously had a strong visceral response to the simply-crafted appearance that this story presents when it is described in one or two sentences. And there is nothing wrong with being concerned enough to learn whether the actual details warrant getting worried. But let's refrain from going off half-cocked due to a visceral fear-response to muslims who are after all, probably businessmen first.

Posted by: bk at February 22, 2006 09:41 AM

I guess I'm not the only one who finds Congress' response quite amusing. The initial media reports only stoked this fire by making it sound as if the Bush Administration had just awarded contracts to this particular company. Somehow the fact that this is merely a merger between two private companies must not have seemed relevant at the time, but it does appear that the real story is starting go get out.

On to Congress...

The absurd notion that they will swiftly move to ban all foriegn companies from having any port responsiblities is just hilarious. It just goes to show how their knee-jerk reactions are so ignorant. I would be willing to venture that they have no idea the chaos such a move would cause. We truly live in a global economy--you can't just make sweeping (ignorant) proclamations and not expect the American economy to suffer if you implement them.

Putting aside the obvious ethnic bias here, it also demonstrates a fundamental lack of belief in a truly competitive, free trade driven, global economy. We'll allow competition in this area, but not that. We want your countries to open up to our multi-national corporations, but we're not so sure we want you here.

Posted by: AR at February 22, 2006 09:55 AM

It's easy to paint everybody opposing this deal as a racist. An Islamophobe. A bigot. That's very easy. I mean, nothing could be easier.

But what y'all don't take into account in your comments and posts is that this isn't just a company based in another country. It's a state-owned company operated by another country. There's a substantive difference there that transcends the race issue.

Think about it for a second, and think about that aspect of things, and re-evaluate whether the opponents of this deal (or even just those who want it further reviewed before accepting it) are being racists, or just practical.

Posted by: Fargus at February 22, 2006 10:26 AM

I'm glad bk saved me the trouble of typing what he did. I'm looking out my office window at one of the ports affected by the merger and I'm having a hard time getting too worked up over this. I just had a conversation with a contractor I'm working with about how little relevent facts have been presented by the media. Of course that serves their purposes of stringing everyone along for as long as possible by stoking emotions without providing the basis for informed opinions allowing the public to dismiss the hype.

Posted by: WHQ at February 22, 2006 10:52 AM

Gee, Carla, you sound just like one of Senator Schumer's press releases.

Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE...

Heh. I hear that ALL of the Oklahoma City members were from the US. Clearly we can't trust Americans to run those ports!

UAE also sent shipments of nuclear components to Iran...

The UAE did nothing of the sort. A smuggling network based in Pakistan trans-shipped smuggled multi-purpose manufacturing components through a UAE port, using two computer supply companies in Dubai associated with the Khan network. That's a far cry from the UAE government doing so. Those companies between them also had offices in Germany, France, Russia, and Great Britain, BTW. One of them was founded and run by British engineer Peter Griffin (no, not THAT Peter Griffin) who had been selling electrical equipment to Pakistan via Dubai for over twenty years.

When the US government was investigating the funding for 9/11, the UAE banks were running funds through--and refused to allow the US government to investigate those banks.

Actually they cooperated quite well, including allowing the FBI to trace records. Indeed, the FBI praised them for their cooperation. The problem was (and is) that Dubai's banking system is both formal and informal, and is a "banking haven" with loose record-keeping and tight secrecy laws. And they actually passed tighter banking laws after 9/11 to facilitate future tracking. That's on top of the informal hawala banking network, which cooperates with no one. The AQ paymaster, BTW, Sheikh Saeed, is a native-born Brit, raised and educated in London. Clearly we can't trust those Brits to run the ports either, so it's a good thing they sold their management contracts.

But ya know, I hear that one of the Senators opposing the deal was once a thespian, and openly matriculated in front of hundreds of people while in college! Rumor has it there are pictures....

Well, hey, it is an election year.

Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 11:46 AM

I agree with Tully on Carla's comments... It is a damn shame when the Democratic Party starts embracing discrimination. One wonders that if Bush had blocked the deal, would they then be calling him a racist? The transparent, bullet point approach to this issue from liberal blogs is borderline pathetic. At least some of the conservative blogs, not that I agree with the right wing point of view on this one, are attempting to have a debate on this issue. Most of the blogosphere is starting to appear like talk radio... Nothing more than a mouth piece for the partisan establishment.

Posted by: Mathew at February 22, 2006 12:14 PM

Carla, security for those ports, as for every US port, is provided by the US Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security and local police. Here's the Christian Science Monitor on it:

Companies like P&O don't provide security at the ports. The US Coast Guard and Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement do. For instance, in New Orleans, P&O is one of eight terminal operators responsible for marketing the port, signing agreements with shipping lines, hiring labor, loading ships, and moving cargo.

But P&O has no responsibility for security. "We have our own police force, harbor patrol, customs officers, and Coast Guard," says Chris Bonura, spokesman for the Port of New Orleans. "That won't change no matter who is operating the terminal."

(cite from Daniel Drezner's blog) Posted by: Joshua at February 22, 2006 12:26 PM

Gee, Carla, you sound just like one of Senator Schumer's press releases.

Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE...

Heh. I hear that ALL of the Oklahoma City members were from the US. Clearly we can't trust Americans to run those ports!

Well gee Tully..in this case Senator Schumer happens to be correct. Or is that negated because it happened to appear in his press release? LOL

The 9/11 hijacker situation isn't a stand alone proposition in this argument, either. Its folded in with the fact that the UAE blocked the US investigation into funding of 9/11 through their banking system.

UAE also sent shipments of nuclear components to Iran...

The UAE did nothing of the sort. A smuggling network based in Pakistan trans-shipped smuggled multi-purpose manufacturing components through a UAE port, using two computer supply companies in Dubai associated with the Khan network. That's a far cry from the UAE government doing so. Those companies between them also had offices in Germany, France, Russia, and Great Britain, BTW. One of them was founded and run by British engineer Peter Griffin (no, not THAT Peter Griffin) who had been selling electrical equipment to Pakistan via Dubai for over twenty years.

I see. So Dubai allowed it to go on through their ports. And this is the same country that wants to provide security for us.

Actually they cooperated quite well, including allowing the FBI to trace records. Indeed, the FBI praised them for their cooperation. The problem was (and is) that Dubai's banking system is both formal and informal, and is a "banking haven" with loose record-keeping and tight secrecy laws. And they actually passed tighter banking laws after 9/11 to facilitate future tracking. That's on top of the informal hawala banking network, which cooperates with no one. The AQ paymaster, BTW, Sheikh Saeed, is a native-born Brit, raised and educated in London. Clearly we can't trust those Brits to run the ports either, so it's a good thing they sold their management contracts.

Yeah..a company run by our closest allies is exactly the same as a company that's got very tight ties with 9/11 and terrorism.

Thanks for clearing that up, Tully.

Now maybe you could play us a new tune while you make excuses for why the legally required 45 day investigation of this sale didn't occur.

Posted by: carla at February 22, 2006 12:30 PM

I see. So Dubai allowed it to go on through their ports. And this is the same country that wants to provide security for us.

That's a very poor understanding of how the AQ Khan network operated throughout Central Asia and the Middle East (and perhaps even the Far East, if some intelligence reports are correct). I could do a lengthy post on the network's operations-- did some research on it for an academic think tank about a year ago-- but I think the more telling issue is: "And this is the same country that wants to provide security for us."

Is that really true, Carla? Or is it just the current talking point? My understanding is that this UAE company would run commercial operations, and have no role in the actual security operations, which would remain with the various DHS agencies. If it is true, however, I would be interested in a link so I could read more about it.

Posted by: Bobby at February 22, 2006 12:38 PM

Now maybe you could play us a new tune while you make excuses for why the legally required 45 day investigation of this sale didn't occur.

Thank you for being honest and bringing us around to what this is really about for Democrats. It has little to do with the deal and is all about Bush is a liar and a crook who should be impeached. Oh, and BTW, did we mention that we hate him?

I'll give you this, let's go outside Hill and Chuck's one line in the NY Times. What is the law you speak of? How does it apply to this situation? What is the argument? Why is this really a concern? Because the Senators from New York, who benefit politically by appearing to actually care about their constituents, told us so?

Come on!

Posted by: Mathew at February 22, 2006 12:53 PM

Yeah, it's all because Schumer and Hilary hate W (even though Bill is practically a member of the Bush family now). It doesn't have anything to do with that little incident that happened five and half years ago, the one that caused a bit of damage to the NY skyline and killed a couple thousand New Yorkers.

What was that called again? I forget...

Posted by: Blue Jean at February 22, 2006 01:49 PM

Ooop! Four and a half years ago. Toldja my memory was bad.
And after all, W has never, never, ever reaped any political benefit from it. Why, it's hard to find a member of the W administration to even admit it happened. Everyone just wants to forget that unfortunate little incident occurred, so let's rush forward to embrace the Middle East as our brothers, and forget all this nasty terrorism stuff.

Posted by: Blue Jean at February 22, 2006 01:54 PM

Let me be sure I'm clear on the Democratic talking points, ok?

The President should NOT listen in on phone calls into the United States by actual members of Al Qaeda, but he SHOULD torpedo a commercial transaction in which one American ally is buying a company owned by another American ally, the principal difference in the two allies being that 2 9/11 hijackers were originally from the one ally, while only a wannabe shoe bomber was a product of the other ally? I mean, they both have mosques run by Islamofascist imams who are entirely sympathetic to the aims of Al Qaeda.

Aren't you Democrats using the specter of 9/11 to scare the voters into supporting your side? Where's the evidence that the government of the UAE had anything to do with 9/11?

Look, I'm not 100% convinced on this deal. There are obviously some concerns over possible ties between members of the ruling regime in the UAE and Al Qaeda. But this sudden shift of the Democrats in favor of profiling is rather specious. Weren't many of you speaking loudly in defense of Al Gore's efforts at diplomacy (which involved falsely condemning certain American actions) and reaching out to the Muslim world to show them how we see their point of view?

Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 02:11 PM

so let's rush forward to embrace the Middle East as our brothers, and forget all this nasty terrorism stuff.

Always there with a wonderful strawman... No one is saying we should turnover all responsibility to the UAE. And of course, I'd argue that 9/11 has impacted my life far moreso than 99% of the people on this blog-- I haven't lived in the States now in over three years, and my "down" assignment was an unaccompanied tour in Korea-- but that isn't really the point at all.

The real question is, what will this deal mean for the security operations of the ports in question? If the deal merely gives them control over commercial operations, while leaving responsibility for security matters to DHS, then how is our security being compromised? I'd really like to know because I apparently lack in the intelligence or comprehension skills to figure this out. And I'm not saying this is the case, but I have yet to find a single person that can direct me to any source indicating that DPW would receive control over the security of the ports.

Quite frankly, I just don't think it's true at all, and I think it is being used as disngenuously as the Republicans (Christopher Cox, specifically) used growing Chinese influence in California as proof of some Clinton Administration "sell out" to Beijing.

Posted by: Bobby at February 22, 2006 02:11 PM

Jean,

Spare me.

Posted by: Mathew at February 22, 2006 02:14 PM

I can't post without being part of the piling on that proves that we're right wing stooges and not centrists at all.

Let me just say that for the sake of the credibility of Schumer, Clinton, and Carla, I sure hope one of them gets around to citing one of those single, concrete, specific, substantive reasons to be worried that I asked about.

I STILL have not read any description detailing even a single change that will result due to this sale that warrants concern.

The merest hint of the possibility of impropriety just aint a meal Carla. As the people I PO'd last week can attest, I bent over backwards to give Al Gore the benefit of the doubt last week. So class me among the stooges if it pleases you. But I've been given no decent reason to think there is anything whatsoever to this story besides fearmongering by the democrats to score political points among those barely paying attention.

Posted by: bk at February 22, 2006 02:18 PM

When I first heard about this deal, I said "what the hell?!" But when I actually learned the details, I became convinced that Bush is right on this one. I think that at least some (maybe not all) of the Democrats have calculated that most people won't get past "what the hell?!" and, therefore, this is a winning political issue for them.

Posted by: Todd Pearson at February 22, 2006 03:11 PM

Give that man Todd a cigar!

The better to not hold your breath waiting for the fan flamers to show us the specific security threat they're so busy insinuating about. My rule is that if someone tries to blow smoke up your crack then it must be ok for you to either a) blow it in their face or b)tell them to blow it out their crack.

Posted by: bk at February 22, 2006 03:20 PM

legally required 45 day investigation of this sale

What "legally required...investigation"? Unless I missed something in the details (which is possible) the proposed transaction doesn't seem to fall under the Exon-Florio provision and Byrd Amendment as overseen by CFIUS. (Details here.) That applies only to the foreign acquisition of US corporations, not the foreign acquisition of other foreign corporations with US investments. In any case, a CFIUS review's not in the least bit "mandatory" unless CFIUS first (voluntarily) determines that it both falls under their purview and shows a high likelihood of being detrimental to national security, after which any actions taken to block the transaction OR NOT are at the SOLE discretion of the President.

Its folded in with the fact that the UAE blocked the US investigation into funding of 9/11 through their banking system.

The Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory--hauled out by all sides in one form or another when actual relevant evidence isn't handy. No, Carla, the UAE government didn't block the investigation. Some of the banks in the UAE, a "money haven," did not want to cooperate. Among them the UAE branches of those dedicated terrorist financiers, CitiBank and Credit Suisse. The UAE government then leaned on the banks until they DID cooperate with the FBI, which in turn praised the UAE government for assisting them in performing criminal investigations on foreign soil. The UAE was cooperating with the CIA long before 9/11, BTW, to the extent of detaining and interrogating international travellers at CIA request.

Dubai "allowed" smuggling through their ports the same way every other government does--by failing to detect it. Every country on earth is guilty of that. GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY! All of 'em.

Strange how the notions of omnipotent government float through the blogosphere. You'd almost think some folks truly believe that we should all have assigned government minders of impeccable demeanor peering over all of our shoulders every minute of the day. How else can we prevent crime?

Hey, it worked for the USSR, and it works for China. Right? So, what's not to like?

Since AQ moneyman Shiekh Saeed is a native Brit, we really need to crack down on those British asset de-acquisitions, and any Brit money transactions! Maybe even exclude Barclay's Bank from operating in the US. My point being that conflating a criminal's (or a terorist's)citizenship with government participation and collusion is stretching things more than a little bit without some substantial supporting evidence.

In fact, without that supporting evidence it's just flat-out racist demonization. Like using scare stories about drug-crazed minorities to ban marijuana during the Depression.

There may well be reasons to block the UAE sale, but I haven't heard a coherent one yet. Just a bunch of race-baiting and demagoguery in an election year. Color me unimpressed.

Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 03:22 PM

Seems that it already had been reviewed by several intel agencies. And even Jimmy Carter doesn't object.

"My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state and the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage these ports," Carter told CNN. "I don't think there's any particular threat to our security."

"

Is it time to quote Shakespeare yet?

Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 03:35 PM

Turns out that the transaction was also reviewed by CFIUS, which found no reason to ask for an extended investigation. Which 45-day extension, I note, is NOT mandatory in the least.

Yeah, Shakespeare, that's the ticket....

Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 03:53 PM

Quote of the year, right here:

I think that at least some (maybe not all) of the Democrats have calculated that most people won't get past "what the hell?!" and, therefore, this is a winning political issue for them.

Posted by: Mathew at February 22, 2006 05:04 PM

Mathew,

I am sparing you. You should see me when I get mean. ;-)

I'm just a wee bit skeptical when the administration that's been yelling "Terror!" when it comes to wiretapping, "Terror!" when it comes to Iraq, and "Terror!" when it comes to election time, suddenly thinks it's hunky dory to do this UAE deal. Like I said, I'm from Missouri.

Pat,

There's a big difference between an ex-veep who's not in power (and most likely never will be in power again) speaking concilatory words to a small group of Saudis, and the head of a national administration turning six American ports over to the control of a Saudi business. You and I can agree to disagree, but I doubt Gore is ever going to smuggle a nuke through one of the ports he doesn't have.

If I were a real cynic, I would say that this is all a Kabuki dance, with W playing "good cop" for the Saudis and the GOP congress playing "bad cop". Congress acts outraged, W stands firm, Congress gets louder and noisier, W finds a way to back down, and that's the end. The GOP congress has burnished its patriotic credentials, W gets to sing "Kum By Yah" for the Saudis (and get lots of high-paying lobbying gigs on their behalf), the deal quietly goes through anyway, (as soon as the next GOP President is installed in 2009) and everybody's happy.

Except the public.

Posted by: Blue Jean at February 22, 2006 05:20 PM

I'm just a wee bit skeptical when the administration that's been yelling "Terror!" when it comes to wiretapping, "Terror!" when it comes to Iraq, and "Terror!" when it comes to election time, suddenly thinks it's hunky dory to do this UAE deal. Like I said, I'm from Missouri.

Jean,

That is exactly what you insinuated was the reason behind Schumer and Hillary's opposition to this deal. Why is it okay for them to use 9/11 as an excuse, but not Bush? Answer: You agree with them, and not Bush.

Just as you are skeptical of Bush, I am skeptical of the party on the other side of those issues, the one that claims they are for multiculturalism and diversity, who went through the roof arguing for free trade when Bush shut France out of contracts in Iraq, and are now saying the deal shouldn't go through. Hey, I am as surprised as anyone that Bush is doing the right thing here, but that doesn't mean that he isn't.

Posted by: Mathew at February 22, 2006 05:34 PM

Skeptical, Jean? Now whoever around here would encourage anyone to skepticism? :-)

But I beg to note that (as far as I know) the Saudis aren't involved in this deal at all...and the Emirs aren't their best buddies in any case, especially Dubai's. (Dubai is only one of the seven emirates.) The UAE's a very unusual "nation," and they've prospered by not interfering with each other, and by recruiting outsiders (British, American, whomever had the guns) to help keep others from interfering with them. Dubai has the lowest oil revenue of the bunch (5% of GDP) and has stayed alive for a couple o' centuries by being a free trade port. Their main sources of revenue are the free trade and manufacturing zones, and tourism. Despite having almost NO natural resources, they've prospered and even outstripped their oil-rich neighbors by being the Hong Kong or Taiwan of the Persian Gulf. It's as advanced tech as possibly can be for the Middle East.

Moral: Beware your assumptions about Dubai. It's not an oil state, they have no ancient shrines or mass fundamentalist movements, Christians and Buddhists and Hindus worship openly and have their own churches and temples (though they're not allowed to proselytize), the Emirate has their own courts and customs seperate from the other emirates, and the residents of Dubai are mostly expatriates from South and Southeast Asia. It is a most stereotype-busting Middle Eastern state.

By all means, let's look at the deal. Without the demagoguery and demonization. But Saudi Arabia this isn't. Not even close.

Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 07:13 PM

My understanding - and perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong - is that the company that is supposedly buying it is not a private actor, but a subsidiary of the government of the UAE. That is, it's a state-run corporation. Although the UAE is not the enemy, what happens if a weapon is shipped through a port it controls? Does that not suggest the possibility that the UAE government - not simply a UAE corporation - at least a suspect and possibly an enemy, rather than a partner?

Posted by: Simon at February 22, 2006 07:44 PM

It's a state-owned corporation of the government of Dubai, one of the seven emirates. See above.

Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 07:53 PM

I remain sceptical. My default position when faced with a spat between the President and Congress - not particularly the current ones, but any President and any Congress - is that the President is probably wrong and Congress is probably right. That's justa prejudice, but Burke had some interesting things to say about the nature of prejudice, and since I have no dog in this race (if I lived in a city likely to be a terrorist target, I might think differently), I intend to remain sceptical to the extent I think about it at all (which is to say, not much).

In any instance, I think it's a little silly to start attacking the Democrats on this one, since the chorus of dissent is bipartisan.

Posted by: Simon at February 22, 2006 08:09 PM

Except that the Republican critics of the deal are being pretty consistent with their distrust of the Muslim world. The Democrats seem to have left their openness and tolerance and being nice to allies, etc. Note that President Carter came out for the deal.

But, as with the stories about scalia's C-Span appearance, the partisan wrangling is far, far less important than the merits of the deal.

Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 09:19 PM

A few points:

1. We're not allowed to discriminate against Americans by nationa of origin. But we're not talking about nation of origin here, we're talking about nation of actual domicile and citizenship--the UAE. No one has identified any treaty that prevents discrimination against UAE residents. Does international law force us to take their money?

2. Even though the actual security would be in American hands, it seems to me that ownership conveys access to a great deal of information--or intelligence, if you want to call it that. If the UAE owns our ports, won't details of port operations be resident on computers in the UAE?

3. Sorry if I sound like a commie, but if the UAE government can own or control U.S. ports, why shouldn't the USA government own or control them? Is it socialism only when the government owns assets in its own homeland, but capitalism if the government owns assets in another nation?

Posted by: rickheller at February 22, 2006 09:23 PM

To clarify a couple of points, the deal is NOT to BUY U.S. ports. The deal is for port management service contracts. The purchaser of the management company is not the government of the UAE (which is a loose federation of independent emirates) or even directly the government of Dubai, but a government-owned Dubai corporation that manages ports worldwide. See above.

Posted by: Tully at February 22, 2006 09:39 PM

Rick, one of the key issues to me in many of these international trade deals with foreign government-owned corporations is reciprocity. Does their government allow U.S. corporations to buy or operate similar industries in their country. Lack of of such reciprocity was one of the main reasons I opposed the deal to let China buy Unocal. I can't imagine China letting a major American corporation purchase a controlling interest in any Chinese oil company (if there even is more than one).

But my understanding of Dubai is that they are fairly open to foreign investment. But I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted by: PatHMV at February 22, 2006 10:00 PM

So by having a pitch-fit against the UAE being administratively respsonible for these ports (note the term administrative) because they are an Arab country...you'll gonna let the TSA, Highway Patrol, et al, start pulling people over and taking people aside and paying extra attention to those who look Arab?

Profiling is profiling, but when the Libs don't like it, I guess it's Homeland Security. What a bunch of TV camera wannabes they are.

As for Israeli security guards...I for one have had a belly full of Israel. We support them because they are the only true democracy in the Middle East. Has it occured to anyone that if we didn't support them there could very well be a half dozen democracies in the Middle East by now?

Posted by: realrepublicancirca1854 at February 22, 2006 10:57 PM

I have to admit that my initial reaction was "hell no" as well...but now that I've had a chance to be informed of more of the details of the isssue my view has moderated considerably.

The initial media reports made it sound like the UAE was purchasing the ports outright and was going to be responsible for ALL operations there (including security). That would be HUGELY different then what is actualy the case.

I still have some concerns, however. I do believe that it IS legitimate for a nation to require local ownership for certain industries that have vital strategic importance.... and I would consider operations at some of our largest ports to fall within that category. (I'm also seriously concerned over the percentage of vital components that go into alot of our millitary hardware, including munitions that are purchased from foriegn sources).

While it's true that this would not effect security operations within those ports directly..... I cannot see how managerial oversight over daily commercial operations WOULDN'T provide a significant advantage to parties interested in finding methods to circumvent those security operations. Furthermore, it certainly would seem to provide ample opportunity to disrupt REGULAR OPERATIONS and services at those ports (which are also important to our national interests) in foriegn hands.

There is, of course, the potential for a significant diplomatic downside to blocking UAE ownership of the operating company. It's hard to sell the message to Arab nations, let alone the Arab populace as a whole that America isn't against the Arab world as a whole...just against a small faction of Arab extremists... when we block "legitimate" Arab corporations from purchasing significant American assets. That sure seems to be sending a mixed signal, at best.

Still, even though I have been generaly supportive of this Administration....I can't help but get the feeling that they are coming down on the wrong side of this issue. I can't help but get the feeling that they are letting economic interests trump what should be basic National Security.....which is ownership and control over vital strategic industries. This issue certainly doesn't raise to the level of importance/panic that the pols and media are pushing.....and as I said before, I think it pales in comparison to consideration of where some of the components for our millitary hardware comes from (and more importantly lack of capacity for domestic production of some of those components due to a lack of a market for potential domestic producers).....but I still think we aught to rethink this decision....and frankly of ALL the things GWB could have threatened to use the virgin veto pen on in the past...it strikes me as absurd that he would settle on this one.

Posted by: cengel at February 23, 2006 01:38 PM

I still have some concerns, however. I do believe that it IS legitimate for a nation to require local ownership for certain industries that have vital strategic importance

For example, there is the continuing controversy over which shipyard will build the DD(x) destroyer, Maine or Mississippi, but as far as I know, no-one has proposed contracting the task to an Iranian shipyard. We do not have fighter jets built in China, nor do we (or would we) subcontract the maintainance of our SSBN fleet to a Russian company based out of Severodvinsk. Posted by: Simon at February 23, 2006 06:50 PM