Posted on 02/24/2006 10:18:56 PM PST by Reagan Man
“This Dubai port deal has unleashed a kind of collective mania we haven’t seen in decades ... a xenophobic tsunami,” wails a keening David Brooks, “a nativist, isolationist mass hysteria is ... here.”
The New York Times columnist obviously regards the nation’s splenetic response to news that control of our East Coast ports had been sold to Arab sheiks as wildly irrational. In witness whereof he quotes Philip Damas of Drewry Shipping Consultants, “The location of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant.”
But irrelevant to whom?
Why is it irrelevant, in a war against Arab and Islamic terrorists, to question the transfer of control of our East Coast ports from Britain to the United Arab Emirates?
Our cosmopolitan Mr. Brooks lives in another country. He has left the America of blood and soil, shaken the dust from his sandals, to enter the Davos world of the Global Economy where nationality does not matter and where fundamentalists and flag-wavers of all faiths are the real enemies of progress toward the wonderful future these globalists have in store for us.
“God must love Hamas and Moktada Al-Sadr,” snorts Brooks, “He has given them the America First brigades of Capitol Hill.”
To Brooks there is little distinction between Islamic mobs burning Danish consulates and America First patriots protesting some insider’s deal to surrender control of American ports to Arab sheiks.
But the reflexive recoil to this transaction between transnationals is a manifestation of national mental health. The American people have not yet been over-educated into the higher stupidity. Common sense still trumps ideology here. Globalism has not yet triumphed over patriotism. Rather than take risks with national security, Americans will accept a pinch of racial profiling.
Yep, the old America lives.
Like alley cats, Americans yet retain an IFF, Identify-Friend-or-Foe radar that instinctively alerts them to keep a warier eye on some folks than on others.
But in rejecting a deal transferring control of our ports to Arabs, are Americans not engaging in discrimination? Are they not engaging in ethnic prejudice?
Of course they are. But not all discrimination is irrational, nor is all prejudice wrong. To discriminate is but to choose. We all discriminate in our choice of friends and associates. Prejudice means prejudgment. And a prejudgment in favor of Brits in matters touching on national security is rooted in history.
In the 20th century (if not the 19th), the Brits have been with us in almost every fight. It was not Brits who struck us on 9/11, who rejoiced in the death of 3,000 Americans, who daily threaten us from the mosques of East and West, who behead our aid workers, bomb our soldiers and call for “Death to America!” in a thousand demonstrations across the Middle East. And while not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists appear to be Muslim.
As Mother Church has a “preferential option” for the poor, there is nothing wrong with America’s preferential option for the cousins.
Does this mean all Arabs should be considered enemies? Of course not.
The folks from Dubai may detest the 9/11 murderers as much as we do, for those killers shamed their faith, disgraced their people, and bred a distrust and fear of Arabs and Muslims that had never before existed here.
Yet, just as sky marshals seat themselves behind young Arab males, not grannies taking the tots to Disney World, so, Americans, in deciding who operates their ports, naturally prefer ourselves, or old friends.
Why take an unnecessary risk? Just to get an A for global maturity on our next report card from the WTO?
The real question this deal raises is what happened to the political antenna at the White House? Did it fall off the roof about the time President Bush named Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court?
Anyone in touch with Middle America, especially after 9/11 and endless warnings of imminent attacks on U.S. soil, would know this country is acutely sensitive to terror threats. Surely, before approving this deal with Dubai Ports World, someone should have asked:
“How do you think Bubba will react when he’s told sheiks will take over the port of Baltimore where, in Tom Clancy’s ‘Sum of All Fears,’ Arab terrorists smuggle in an a-bomb and detonate it?”
Apparently, no one bothered to ask, or the question was brushed off in the interests of hastily greasing the deal.
Now this episode is going to end badly. Bush, who has denied advance knowledge of the deal, is being ripped by liberals for living in a pre-9/11 world and being out of touch with his government.
As for our remaining friends in the Middle East, they have been given another reason to regard Americans as fickle friends who, down deep. Don’t like Arabs.
Unquestionably, this will result in a victory for those who wish to sever America’s friendships in the Arab world. But it is Bush and his unthinking globalists, not the American Firsters whom Brooks cannot abide who engineered this latest debacle.
the UAE has a long history of funding hamas....check my freeper homepage
These are excerpts, go forth and read at link:
Introduction. The United States has traditionally welcomed Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and provided foreign investors fair, equitable and nondiscriminatory treatment with few limited exceptions designed to protect national security. The Exon-Florio provision is implemented within the context of this open investment policy. The intent of Exon-Florio is not to discourage FDI generally, but to provide a mechanism to review and, if the President finds necessary, to restrict FDI that threatens the national security.
The Statute. Section 5021 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 to provide authority to the President to suspend or prohibit any foreign acquisition, merger or takeover of a U.S. corporation that is determined to threaten the national security of the United States. The President can exercise this authority under section 721 (also known as the "Exon-Florio provision") to block a foreign acquisition of a U.S. corporation only if he finds:
(1) there is credible evidence that the foreign entity exercising control might take action that threatens national security, and
(2) the provisions of law, other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act do not provide adequate and appropriate authority to protect the national security.
Factors To Be Considered. The Exon-Florio provision lists the following factors that the President or his designee may consider in determining the effects of a foreign acquisition on national security. These factors are:
(1) domestic production needed for projected national defense requirements;
(2) the capability and capacity of domestic industries to meet national defense requirements, including the availability of human resources, products, technology, materials, and other supplies and services;
(3) the control of domestic industries and commercial activity by foreign citizens as it affects the capability and capacity of the U.S. to meet the requirements of national security;
(4) the potential effects of the transaction on the sales of military goods, equipment, or technology to a country that supports terrorism or proliferates missile technology or chemical and biological weapons; and
(5) the potential effects of the transaction on U.S. technological leadership in areas affecting U.S. national security.
Now this next one is VERY important. Consider who it is that sits on this committee and the fact that the President of the USA in 1988 turned over HIS RESPONSIBILITIES to said committee. Do any of you out there, undestand the big issue here? Then to find out ex-State Dept. officials, Senators and Presidents have been LOBBYING FOR THIS DEAL!
In 1988, the President, pursuant to Executive Order 12661, delegated to CFIUS his responsibilities under Section 721. Specifically, E.O. 12661 designated CFIUS to receive notices of foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies, to determine whether a particular acquisition has national security issues sufficient to warrant an investigation and to undertake an investigation, if necessary, under the Exon-Florio provision.
You are correct that Congress also said don't send us any reports. I found that on another Gov't link but don't recall at the momenent where and don't feel like going and locating it. But you are all free to go read about every aspect of this deal, Maritime laws, Manifests, the History of Dubai concerning it being the hub of wmd transfers, etc. etc. etc. I'm simply not buying the arguments for this being a good deal. I actually find it ludicrous now.
When you're down to this accusation, RM, you ought to give up.
This is a done deal. There will be a compromise announced to make Congress feel important, but DPW will, at some point, be operating these ports.
I, unlike you, know what hypothesis and hypothetical mean.
Again, unlike you, I stated facts.
I suggest that before you reply to me, again, you go back to the post, of yours, that I replied to. It wasn't a hypothetical anything.
It hasn't "stared me down." I don't have a single issue with this port management transfer. And the more I read, the more convinced I am that it is, at the least, a neutral deal.
Fear, fear, fear. I've never seen so many scaredy-cats among adults in all my life.
But you still misunderstand.
The timeline events went up to 9/11/01. All of that Al-Queda activity was going on in the UAE even in the year 2001...not very long ago, only five years ago.
It would be surprising if they all just packed up and cleared completely out.
Do you not think UAE got a bell rung on 9-11?
Yours wasn't either, they are just analogies.
You are still making the same apples-to-oranges comparison. In your example you see a dog of a breed that you know has been dangerous, and you took appropriate steps to protect your child from that danger, because you had a simple ability to do so.
But would you, seeing the dog in the street and knowing nothing about it, run it over with your car since you know that SOME pit bulls are dangerous, therefore ALL pitbulls deserve to be punished?
Taking things out of analogy and back into the imperfect world we live in -- many people justify their racism by the argument that blacks are more likely to commit crimes, therefore it just makes sense that they should be allowed to associate only with whites. Or just with people just like them, because that is what makes them most comfortable.
I can't argue with that -- everybody feels more comfortable dealing with people that are like them, and thinks that is simply the safest and most acceptable association.
But Society suffers if everybody acts in their own selfish interest in that way. So we as a society, FOR THE COMMON GOOD, have used government as a "persuasion" to force people to associated in certain public ways with those they feel uncomfortable with. This association has in fact led to some people being harmed who would in fact have remained unharmed had they been allowed to to things "their way".
Stores are shoplifted by a black man, who they never would have let into their store if not for the anti-discrimination laws. And that seems wrong, but it isn't. Sure, a single person denying blacks access to their store wouldn't really matter, but if many people do it, blacks as a group are penalized even though most are fine upstanding citizens.
Having been denied access, denied equal treatment, they can become a problem that otherwise would not exist. (They also have their constitutional rights denied, but I ignore that aspect for this discussion since constitutional rights are not in play in the ports case).
Your child is put at risk for the common good. We make children get vaccines. This is a risk. However, if nobody got vaccines, many more children would die than end up dying from the vaccine.
But, in the perfect world for your child, every other child would get a vaccine, and your child would not. Since all others were vaccinated, your child had no danger of getting ill. And since your child skipped the vaccine, there is no danger of dying from the vaccine.
So why doesn't this happen? Because if you ALLOW one to skip vaccines, many will realise this benefit, and they will skip vaccines, and then there WILL be a risk of sickness and the benefit will turn into a liability.
Your blanket contention that you increase the risk of terrorism by giving access to muslims is correct. At this time muslims are disproportionately represented in the world of terrorism, and avoiding all contact with muslims would lower your risk of being effected by terrorism.
But society would be harmed for your gain, and that harm is greater than the gain. We need to lower the risk of muslims being terrorists, not increase muslim isolation and hatred for us. Rejecting the port deal simply because it is an ARAB company and we know some arabs are terrorists harms our national interest, and perversely harms our national security.
If there was a real security issue solved by that denial, you could weigh the benefits and risks to society, and make an informed choice. But since there is no real security issue, only the vague perception of "dread" about the idea of a muslim company controlling the ports, there is no rational basis for judging security to be improved by denying the deal.
If you really want to get ports back into U.S. hands, denying the deal is completely superflous to that goal. You are going to have to get the ports out of the hands of P&O anyway -- it will be no harder to get them back from DP World. If this was a transfer from an american company, the argument would have merit, but since it is not, stopping the deal doesn't put you a single step closer to the goal of american control of ports.
First, they must not have gotten much of a "sweatheart" deal, if its the same deal that 1529 of the other 1531 firms got. Sounds like they just got the SAME deal.
But you should know that the number "1530 out of 1531" is deceptive. For example, most opponents (I don't believe you are one of these) will become supporters of this deal if, say, DP World agreed to put a U.S. board in charge of the U.S. operations. If CIFIUS HAD made an objection, and DP WOrld responded with such a concession, CIFIUS would then approve the deal -- and few would complain.
That is in fact what happens many times with CIFIUS. When a company has made a commitment to buy another company, there is a lot of incentive to complete the deal, so companies will offer many concessions to overcome objections from CIFIUS and other government entities.
For example, in this case DP World has to get a court approval in England. They had opposition, so they offered to keep the P&O Board in place running operations, and to keep the P&O company in England, rather than moving those operations to Dubai. Now they are assured of approval in England (We benefit because it means our ports are still under control of the england-based company which will now be a subsidiary of DP World).
There are also cases where a company will withdraw an offer because they see impending rejection by CIFIUS, or another entity. That has happened several times in the course of CIFIUS.
Third, many deals aren't even PRESENTED because of the knowledge that CIFIUS would reject the deals. Through informal discussions with various countries, a company may find what the objections will be, and decide that concessions would make the deal unsatisfactory, so they simply don't make a bid. There is no statistics on that occurance.
So, with a process like CIFIUS, simply looking at how many final approvals are given is mostly meaningless, since it counts only ONE of the four possibilities, and discounts the nature of real world business:
1) Company finds CIFIUS wouldn't approve, so doesn't bid.
2) Company bids, sees CIFIUS will reject, can't make concessions, and withdraws the bid before CIFIUS rejects.
3) Company bids, CIFIUS sends objections, company corrects objections, CIFIUS approves.
4) Company bids, CIFIUS sees no objections, approves.
In the DP World case, this is at least their 2nd time through CIFIUS, so even if they didn't make concessions this time, it could be they did so last time. In any case having been approved before would make it easier to be approved again.
Yes, this is Free Republic, where we try to judge things based on facts, and not emotion. And where we realise that the muslim that lives next door shouldn't be deported because a muslim flew a plane into a building, any more than all white men should be thrown in jail because a white man blew up federal building.
Do you actually believe that no muslim can be trusted to the same extent that you can trust any christian, or buddhist, or hebrew?
Sure so why would they blow up our ports if they need us to keep theirs from being blown up? We could blow up their ports in a heartbeat given that our ships are right
"What a fickle (and stupid) bunch they would be to give up our protection for denial of this deal."
And we would be a fickle stupid bunch too for denying them access to our ports when we have access to theirs. Those who are so afraid of the UAE being near our ports should be just as afraid that our Navy is in their ports! You guys need to start calling for a pull out our ships as well as a pull out of the port deal.
what the he!! are you babbling about..... deportations?
I thought the topic was letting the UAE work in our seaports. Talk about "emotion". You leap from opposing a potentially dangerous business deal to deporting all muslims, yikes.
And hey, wasn't it President Bush who got all emotional and began threatening vetos, (for the very first time), and pointing his finger at the U.S. Senate and insinuating they are racists because they (dems and repubs) disagree with his UAE deal? Never thought I'd live to see the day when the Republicans take a page from liberal democrat politics and start using the bogus "race card" tactic against those who oppose a political stand or issue, especially against their own party members who oppose it.
Bush's insinuation that good, honest people who oppose this deal are "racist" is bringing conservatives down to the level of liberal democrats and dividing the party, wake up.
Thanks! I wanted to use Sherlock Holmes as a screen name but it was taken so I got the idea to use Hound of the Baskervilles. I have changed my tagline to fit my screen name. "
"I look at this issue from a intellectual point of view and from a political point of view. From the political point of view this is a huge mess."
Oh there's no doubt it is a political mess for Bush.
I read your quote and it's a very precise one. I would say that as long as our government can tell the EAU company what to do and they can't tell us what to do, we retain our sovereign status. They MUST follow our rules and meet our requirements, not the other way around.
Do any of these emirates have their own Navys?
Yes they do go here and scroll down.
http://www.scramble.nl/ae.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.