« Multi-culti madness | Main | Pacifist finds peace at last »
March 10, 2006
In the aftermath of the Dubai debacle . . .
Gerard Van der Leun discusses the reasons for the upsurge in opposition amongst the American electorate.
"I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East," Bush said.
I, for one, am not concerned about the message. Bluntly put, the message is that Americans -- through their elected representatives -- are, for once, united. They are united around the fact that, when you get right down to the nub of it, they simply do not trust Arabs and Muslims. We are, after all, at war with the culture and the religion . . .
What was the deal-killer here? Three simple words: "United Arab Emirates." I submit that a deal that handed over control of American ports to the "United Swiss Cantons" would have gone through like a downhill racer above Gstaad. . .
Neither side will point to the obvious cause of the slip-sliding away of the ports deal: Muslim and Arab behavior over the last six decades peaking at 9/11 and rolling on since then quite nicely, thank you.
The question is not "Do Americans distrust Arabs and Muslims?" They do. They distrust them all across the political spectrum -- with the exception of the Left side of what now passes for the Democratic Party, and the members of the Republican Party and assorted plutocrats that have profit in their plans.
The question is "Should Americans distrust Arabs and Muslims?"
Well, when you have a rag-tag collection of cultures and a global religion that regularly turns out to burn down embassies, drive airplanes into skyscrapers, plants bombs along roadsides on a daily basis, has its "representatives" run into crowds, buses, and subway tunnels and self-detonate, beheads random innocent individuals, and promises to conquer the world and put all unbelievers to the sword or into slavery, you don't exactly feel good about those folks. While it is true that their actions get a lot of ink and air-time, you can't say that their PR creates a lot of mellow, positive feelings. What it creates is fear, suspicion and distrust. . .
If a lot of members of your family spend a lot of time killing and threatening members of my family, I might be willing not to condemn every member of your family, but that doesn't mean we're going to be doing a lot of business deals over lunch.
Apart from the politics of the deal, I'm troubled by the attempt to portray those opposed to the Dubai Port World purchase as either ignoramuses or bigots, with supporters of DPW resorting to ad hominem attacks, rather than citing reasons for me to change my mind.
There's a thread of comments over at Captain's Quarters that's typical: a few folks asking questions about the deal, and the majority tarring opponents as shamefully ignorant.
Although DPW would not have had turban-clad jihadis unloading cargo, they would have some role in actually running the ports, right? I listened to Tony Snow; he drove me up a wall, nay-saying any and all complaints about DPW, in essence saying that they don't do anything.
Really? So they buy the port operations franchise and then just sit back and cash checks? The supporters of the ports deal had a tremendously difficult time telling us anything DPW would actually do.
I believe the two main vulnerabilities were that DPW would have access to the security plans and emergency/disaster response protocols as the operating entity; and they would have the ability to control the computerized cargo manifest system.
The problems with having any foreign-owned company having access to the security plans for a port should be -- pardon the pun -- manifest. To gain access to the information is vital to bypassing it.
As to the cargo manifests, it doesn't matter who unloads the ships, if DPW controls the ports of origin. They can load anything -- or re-load a container -- and hide any skullduggery by manipulating the computerized cargo tracking system.
One of the commenters over at Captain's Quarters made the point that Pres. Bush, for all the good he did in the aftermath of 9-11, appears incapable of grasping the need to secure our borders. I agree -- as do the majority of Americans.
The better criticism of opposition to the DPW deal is that it's easier to smuggle a nuke into the U.S. by hiding it in a bale of marijuana just south of the U.S.-Mexico border, and have a couple of illegals carry it in on foot.
As for the other ports operated by other foreign companies, well, I'd support revisiting that issue, too. Free trade, like the Constitution, is not a suicide pact.
Today, I was listening to Michael Medved on the way to lunch. A conservative, Yale-educated lawyer by training and an Orthodox Jew, I usually find his analyses to be quite astute. But he proceeded to set up and knock down a series of straw-men in a fashion that had me on the verge of apoplectic road rage, so dishonest were his premises.
Medved began by positing that foreign investment was good, wasn't it? Don't we want foreign companies to invest their dollars in the U.S.
Yes, Michael.
"For goodness sake, doesn't it help our economy?"
Yes, Michael.
"Well, if a foreign investor buys a building, isn't it more likely that he wants to make a profit than knock it down?"
Well, that depends. Is it an investor whose motivation is the desire to make more money? Or is he a wealthy jihadi, who considers the purchase price of the building part of the cost of conducting a war against the West?
Medved went on in this fashion, as if DPW was some transnational supermarket chain, looking to buy a few bodegas.
First, let me say that I don't oppose anyone investing in the U.S. I do have a problem with foreign corporations, especially government-run businesses, buying a controlling interest in American industries, most particularly those that have a direct impact on our national security. They can have 49 percent all the live-long-day, but not control.
Second, all countries are not alike. As Van der Leun pointed out, a Swiss consortium probably would not have had the kind of problems DPW faced. That may seem unfair, but if you're looking for sympathy, you'll find it in the OED between "shit" and "syphilis."
Dubai, for all the good it has done assisting us in the fight against the jihadis, does not recognize the State of Israel. Dubai takes part in the economic boycott of Israel. Dubai engages in material support of terrorist organizations. Some have made the argument that it is illegal for them to do business with the U.S. because of these facts.
Setting that aside, if we want to reward them for their efforts to back us up, then by all means, they can invest in many U.S. industries. Just not aerospace, transportation, nuclear power, shipping, or other areas that are integral components of our national security.
As Van der Leun said, "If a lot of members of your family spend a lot of time killing and threatening members of my family, I might be willing not to condemn every member of your family, but that doesn't mean we're going to be doing a lot of business deals over lunch."
Tough, but true. Money can buy a lot of things. Trust ain't one of them.
Posted by Mike Lief at March 10, 2006 06:16 PM
| TrackBack