Dubai Do Buy De Port 2
There’s certainly a lot of upset over the corporate passing of P&O:
There is much gnashing of teeth on both sides of the aisle that Dubai’s acquisition of P&O somehow increases the risk of a terrorist attack at one of the US ports.
I’m not sure I can see that. It is difficult for me to imagine how a change in corporate ownership half a world away will affect day-to-day security on the ground.
This afternoon, on my drive home, I heard this report on my second favorite radio station:
Earlier today, I heard Senator Joe say that this was not an anti-Arab thing; that the reaction would have been similar had, say, a Venezuelan firm been in the picture:
In the report I heard this morning, Joe did make one comment really worthy of note: That Congress had probably dropped the ball in not realizing how much of our port operations were sub-contracted out to foreign companies.
In the meantime, others are perceiving an element of prejudice in the reaction:
Several congressmen have vowed to block the sale of British port operator P&O to Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates, a staunch U.S. Gulf ally, citing security concerns even though the deal was approved by the Bush administration.
Meanwhile, back in the bubble (emphasis added):
Defending the deal anew, the administration also said that it should have briefed Congress sooner about the transaction, which has triggered a major political backlash among both Republicans and Democrats.
(President Bush was unaware. Tagline for the current Federal Administration.)
On the left, Randi Rhodes has been all over this like a bad suit.
The right has its own bad-suit thing going:
Frankly (that’s the only way I can think, by the way–frankly), I think there is an element of anti-Arab bigotry in this, as well as no small element of hysteria. And the problem with hysteria is that it clouds decision-making.
Do I have a recommendation? Not really. Do I have a thought? Yes.
How many persons care that Royal Dutch Shell is, well, “Dutch”? or that BP is, well, “British”? Or that T-Mobile is owned by a German outfit? It really does seem unlikely to me that a change in the ownership of P&O will in any way affect the day-to-day operation of ports in the U. S.
Little or nothing has been done to improve port security in the last five years; changing the name of the vendor on the contract will not make it any worse and certainly will not make it any better.
I suggest stepping back and taking a calmer view. To quote Andrew Cassel from today’s local rag:
We need to be clear about this because the global economy is filled with national and multinational corporations, financed by public and private investors from all over.
Moreover, the United States has historically made a point of encouraging open investment across national borders. With relatively few exceptions, we let foreigners buy domestic securities, businesses and real estate – and we encourage other countries to do the same.
If we’re going to have a new policy, what will it be? No foreign money in our ports? No investment by governments? No Arabs allowed?
Whatever we do will have consequences, of course. We can’t slam our doors in foreigners’ faces and expect them to open their own markets to U.S. firms in return.
And as the great engine of globalization shuts down, we’ll have to learn to cope with slower growth, lower incomes, and a no-longer-expanding economic pie.
In other words, we can let the politicians use our national-security worries to erect new walls of fear and nationalism. But we shouldn’t be surprised when those walls also start to hem in our own prosperity.
The right is appealing to xenophobic bigotry; the left is appealing to anti-Bushism (a cause which I whole-heartedly applaud–I am tired of the incompetence). And facts are getting lost.
February 23, 2006 at 8:20 am
Add to this the comments I’ve heard that this contract doesn’t even concern security. That’s reportedly provided by others.
As far as Bush’s role, I’m not convinced this is even a matter that rises to a presidential level. I did hear yesterday that several cabinet-level departments had approved it. Maybe it’s a legitimate matter of delegation.
February 23, 2006 at 6:12 pm
Dan Froomkin had some interesting observations about this:
The current Federal Administration has nurtured an climate of fear.
He who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind.