Posted on 03/10/2006 12:33:17 PM PST by groanup
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The New Protectionists - How to create a real security crisis.
Friday, March 10, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
Dubai Ports World finally threw in the kaffiyah on its American operations yesterday, agreeing to sell them "to a U.S. entity." We hope that entity turns out to be Halliburton, if only for the torment that would cause certain eminences on Capitol Hill.
Dubai Ports was susceptible to this political stampede because it was an Arab-owned company buying port operations, which Democrats have played up as uniquely vulnerable. But this is also the second such mugging of a foreign investor in recent months, following last year's demagoguery against a Chinese company's bid to buy Unocal, a middling American oil company. If Members of Congress want a real security crisis--a financial security crisis--they'll keep this up.
What's especially dangerous here is that we're seeing the re-emergence of the "national security" protectionists. They were last seen in the late 1980s, when Japan in particular was the target of a political foreign-investment panic. The Japanese were buying Pebble Beach and Rockefeller Center, and so America was soon going to be a colony of Tokyo. A Japanese bid for Fairchild Semiconductor of Silicon Valley was seen as a threat to American defense. Those fears seem laughable now. But here we go again, with new targets of anxiety.
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Security issues regarding management of port operations by UAE are a smokescreen for arab haters, not protectionism. I believe in fair trade but always buy American. We would have achieved much Security more by bringing in our allies in the war on terror, letting them have a small (non security) investment in the future of the US, instead of spitting in their eye.
Great post. The above paragraph points to what's really happened with the DPW caper. The dems weren't getting as much money from Soros as they wanted, so now they're trying to set up a protection racket to get a bigger cut of the trillions the rest of us have.
We're not telling them that commerce with us is off limits.
That is exactly the message that the Know-Nothings sent. Arabs need not apply.
Oh really? And that 3 billion dollars a year that the U.A.E. sends in terms of our trade surplus with them is what, tribute?
What the scare quotes? You'd think the WSJ would treat national security as a legitimate issue. And as I said elsewhere, the term "protectionist" doesn't fit, here. Protectionism has to do with economics--who gets the jobs, how much goods cost due to trade deals, etc. This had nothing to do with the economics of the deal. It was all about the security issue. But that's ok. I've gotten used to this tactic now. Even on the right, when they don't get their way, they call you names. Same as they did with the Miers deal. Pathetic and dishonest.
I was satisfied that the Ports deal was ok. I don't think Bush would lead us down the path to doom.
However, I don't like the way some of the people on my side have tried to characterize the other side as racist. Can't we just say to them, "You were wrong, you overreacted, you panicked," without trying to fit them with Klan hoods?
I can't respond in detail to your statement, because it makes no sense. However:
UAE is a small country that lives on foreign trade. They need us, we don't need them.
$3 billion is a very small percentage of our GDP and our foriegn trade. THe US Federal Government budget alone is over $1,500 billion.
The article is an EDITORIAL. It was written to make a point. What you call invective is simple argument for the point being made. The article is well written and cites examples of free trade panics in the past.
2. WSJ thinks only of money and the market. They don't give a damn about the country or anything else. They love "free" trade and massive illegal immigration because it puts money in the pockets of the big investors.
Class warfare won't gain you many converts on this board. Why is it that interest of big business are always deemed at odds with the interest of the country. Most people either work for or invest in big business.
3. The Port deal was bad Politics and Bad for security.
The deal had nothing to do with securtiy. Bad politics is only in the eye of the beholder. The dems certainly want it to look like bad politics.
4. UAE is not run by little kids, who will take their bat and go home because their feeling were hurt. They support us in Gulf for *THEIR OWN INTERESTS*. They will continue to do so.
And in this case their interests were trumped by stupiditiy. I'm sure they also invested a tidy sum in the feasibilty of the deal. Message: don't bother to consider investment in the US. We don't want you. Reply: we'll take our money somewhere else. Of course that won't be overt.
6. To base public policy on "what kind of message it sends" is stupid. Every decision sends any number of messages, and every "message" is received differently in different countries and by different people.
What do you think the Bush doctrine is based on? "You're either with us or against us?" Excuse me but isn't that a message that all policy with regard to the WOT is based on?
Hey, "if the hood fits"(play on words on a tried and true adage of "if the shoe fits").
And I find it ironic the above italicized passage comes from you #1 South Park fan on FR.
After all you have no problem when they go after the Catholic Church.
That said I still don't know how I got on your South Park ping list.
That really doesn't matter anyway, I really don't mind, but be consitent, your heroes at South Park do the same thing, so don't be indignant when others follow their lead.
You protectionists and your elitist references to Hee Haw.
So does that mean you had no evidence?
But I thought Marx said all free trade was bad.
Free trade does do that also(i.e lose national control over your borders.)
How does free trade do that?
Free trade is communism, more government control is conservatism, get it?
We don't need nobody but us-selves. Buy a 787 today . . . for the children
Ping
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.