Why Bush is right

Posted on by

Yes. Please take a minute to compose yourselves. You did read the title of this post correctly and this is the reliably left-leaning Abhi writing this post (and not someone who has infiltrated our North Dakota bunker and is holding me at gunpoint). On Tuesday, President Bush forcefully defended his administration’s decision to allow a sale which would turn over the control of operations at major American ports to a company based in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, and controlled by that government. Here is one news report following the decision:

U.S. lawmakers formally asked the Bush administration Thursday to reconsider its approval of a sale giving a company in the United Arab Emirates control over significant operations at six major American ports.

The lawmakers, including four senators and three House members, sharply criticized the UAE as inconsistent in its support of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts.

They also said the country was a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya and was one of only three nations that had recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government…

The Associated Press reported Saturday that government-owned Dubai Ports World had won approval for the $6.8 billion deal from a secretive U.S. panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry. [Link]

Here is Bush’s strong response today, where he actually threatened to veto any bill that curbs this sale (note: he has NEVER vetoed anything):

He called on opponents to explain why they opposed a Middle Eastern firm taking over when they did not oppose a British company being in control.

“I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, ‘We’ll treat you fairly’,” he said.

“It would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through,” he told reporters. [Link]

For the rest of this post I am going to go out on a limb and trust in two things. I will leave it up to individual readers to decide whether to go out on this limb with me or not:

  1. I will trust that the “secretive U.S. panel” mentioned above has adequately considered and addressed the security risks involved in this deal.
  2. I will trust that there isn’t some larger Machiavellian plot behind this whole thing that will make the President’s friends rich at the expense of others.

<

p> Here is what bothers me. Imagine if after the terrorist attack against the federal building in Oklahoma, Congress announced that it would no longer allow certain key U.S. operations to be handled by Irish companies. McVeigh after all, was of Irish ancestry. Or what if British companies were denied if the shoe bomber, Richard Reed, had been successful? If people feel this way because the U.A.E. is a country of brown-skinned Arabs, then it is not unreasonable to think that they may one day feel this way about brown-skinned Indians. Amitabh Pal at The Progressive has picked up on this as well:

There has been a good amount of hyperbole about a Middle Eastern corporation’s buyout of a company that runs operations in several ports around the United States.

The takeover of the British Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company by Dubai Ports World, a United Arab Emirates government enterprise, has inspired strong reaction that, sadly, has sometimes had a tinge of anti-Arab sentiment.

“How are they going to safeguard against things like infiltration by al-Qaeda or someone else, how are they going to guard against corruption?” asked Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee. The outrage seems to be bipartisan. Democratic Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Robert Menendez are co-sponsoring legislation that will bar the control of port operations by foreign governments if President Bush doesn’t stop by March 2 Dubai Ports World from completing its takeover.

Now, I’m not naïve. The United Arab Emirates served as a financial transfer point for the operation. (This is at least partly due to the fact that UAE has become a major money laundering center due to lax oversight.) But Hamburg was a major plotting center for the terrorists, too. Can anyone imagine a similar outcry if a German state-owned firm had acquired Peninsular and Oriental?

<

p>

<

p>

<

p>Let’s address the prime concern here. The most oft-cited concern is, “what if someone high up in this company, an Arab U.A.E. citizen, is sympathetic to Al Qaeda and leaks important tactical details of a port’s operations to terrorists.” Fact: Two of the 9/11 hijackers were U.A.E. citizens and Al Qaeda money has been laundered through that country’s banks. There is further precedence for having such paranoid thoughts. NPR’s All Things Considered noted that the most relevant comparison to this fear would be Israel’s Operation Thunderbolt (a.k.a Operation Entebbe). In this operation IDF Special Forces Commandos successfully stormed and rescued hostages on Air France Flight 139, which was diverted to an airport in Uganda by terrorists. The important fact here is one of the key reasons why the Israelis succeeded:

One of the reasons that the raid was well planned was that the building in which the hostages were being held was built by an Israeli construction firm. Israeli firms were often involved in building projects in Africa during the 1960s and 1970s. The firm which built the airport terminal still had the blueprints, and supplied them to the government of Israel. In addition many of the released hostages were able to accurately describe the interior of the building, the number of hijackers, the involvement of Ugandan troops and many other important details.

While planning the military operation, the Israeli army built a partial replica of the airport building with the help of some Israeli civilians who had helped build the airport terminal. It has been claimed by researchers that after arriving at the military base to begin work on the replica building (not being aware beforehand what they were to do) the civilian Israeli contractors were invited to dinner with the commander of the base. At the dinner, it was indicated to them that, upon completion of the replica, and in the best interest of national security, they would be held guests of the military for a remaining few days. During the entire operation an extremely high level of security was maintained. [Link]

<

p>I contend that even if documents detailing the operations at these ports were to fall in to the hands of Al Qaeda, we should have safeguards in place that would make such a blunder irrelevant. Even though the company that wants to buy these ports is Arab run, most of the workers will be American. Law enforcement from the Department of Homeland Security MUST have safeguards in place so that even the blueprints and knowledge of the workings of our ports won’t be good enough to enable an attack against America. It is Congress that has failed if our ports are left unprotected and not a company from Dubai.

<

p>One other thing to consider (and this isn’t as big a stretch as it may seem at first) is the possibility that, in the long term, selling to the U.A.E. may make us less susceptible to a terrorist attack. The whole reason that the U.A.E. is buying up foreign businesses with its oil money is because their leaders know that their present economy is unsustainable. When the oil runs out, the U.A.E. will become a country with zero economic prospects, ripe for instability. THAT is the reason why it is diversifying its economy NOW. Given the lessons of 20th century history, I would rather have a stable Arab government that is economically entangled with us, than a poor one that might blame us for its troubles.

<

p>One final point. Over email Manish mentioned to me another analogy to this situation. Look at what is happening with Indian tycoon Laxmi Mittal in his bid to buy the French steel company Arcelor:

The European Union (EU) has reacted to reports of opposition to steel tycoon Laxmi Mittal’s takeover bid of Europe’s largest steelmaker, Arcelor.

The EU said it was against racial discrimination and the issue should be treated only on commercial considerations.

“The EU is of a clear view that nationality in such cases is not relevant and it should be decided according to the laws in place and commercial merits,” said David O’Sullivan, European Commission Director General-Trade.

However, he made it clear that the EU would be concerned if there were any violations of competition rules and the takeover created a monopoly kind of situation.

Mittal is facing bitter resistance in his takeover bid of the French company, Arcelor. The latest opposition comes from Luxembourg, which is looking at a law to fight Mittal’s bid. [Link]

<

p>Conventional wisdom has it that the white European powers that be don’t want a brown man taking control of such a key French company.

And so I side firmly with the Bush administration on this one. What both the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress are doing right now is playing upon the xenophobia of voters with the belief that it will pay-off in November (unfortunately it probably will pay off). The key to this is to build adequate safe-guards into the operations at our ports. It is both the President’s and Congress‘ responsibility to fix our broken port system and not lay the blame on a foreign company.

76 thoughts on “Why Bush is right”

  1. this reaction just tells Arabs “you’re second class global citizens” since no-one has problems with other foreign countries

    I understand why people might have that reaction, but my question is why would it be a bigger PR disaster than Gitmo, which is what I understood you to be saying. In terms of the sheer inhumanity of what’s at issue, the overall numbers of people who might react, and the intensity of that reaction, Gitmo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib seem considerably more disastrous.

  2. Alias

    80% of the country’s population is expatriates.

    who will by law allways be expatriates! All the ports run by that company including seneior directors are expatriates. All they are bringing in is capital(which is going down pretty soon). UAE’s laws are asymetrical in trade and international relations with most countries. I dont know what they are with respect to US. If they are reasonably ok wrt to America then bush is correct in his position. If there is a cockamamy local partner crap for US, then US has every right to throw wrenches in this deal.

  3. there’s no way they can get out of this. there really, isnt. i mean it was a private transaction between P&O and DP WORLD. Assets have already been exchanged for money. March 2nd, the date that the deal goes through is more of a formality than anything else. the only way the americans can get out of this is by introducing legislation which would not allow ports to be run by (note: NOT controlled/NOT owned) any foreign firms.

    That is NOT TRUE.

    If a president were to believe that a business transaction with a foreign entity was harmful to national security, he would have the power to suspend that acquisition. Had Bush felt this takeover was NOT a good idea, he could put a stop to it with one stroke of the pen.

  4. Without knowing the rationale, intent, and motive of the Presiden’t decision, how can you “agree” with him? Do you honestly believe that Bush is going forward all of a sudden with a fair, good-will foreign policy?

    How do you reconcile impending sanctions on the Hamas government and singling out UAE as a business partner? I’m not sure there’s anything beyond cash-flow that one could “agree” with Bush about.

    As for xenophobia… sure. But where do we draw our own line between repudiating xenophobic rhetoric bursting from this business deal and supporting such an excessively xenophobic nation (UAE)? The status of asian people in UAE is appalling and has everything to do with racism, xenophobia, and class war.

    In any case, i’m not sure how far the President’s power goes in this situation. Constitutionally speaking, doesn’t Congress have the ultimate power to regulate commerce, including ports, channels, water, etc.?

  5. That is NOT TRUE. If a president were to believe that a business transaction with a foreign entity was harmful to national security, he would have the power to suspend that acquisition. Had Bush felt this takeover was NOT a good idea, he could put a stop to it with one stroke of the pen.

    the president didnt make the business transaction with the foreign entity. a firm on the other side of the atlantic ocean did.

    anyway, what i said was, it’s too late now. he could have done something back then, but not much can be done now. except introducing new legislation. (which i already mentioned in my earlier post)

    and i still feel xenophobia’s got a role to play in all this. just today CBS news had this picture posted on their website.

    the fact it says ‘dubai’ in arabic goes to show how the media’s sensationalised the fact that the company’s ARAB to get the general public’s attention. that, sadly, is what this whole issue’s been reduced to.

  6. The Council on Foreign relations has a good factual round-up of the takeover of leases by a dubai – i mean ARAB – company: here.

    Introduction Dubai Ports World (DP World), a United Arab Emirates (UAE)-owned company, recently bought the British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O). Effective March 2, the purchase gives Dubai Ports World control over facilities in six U.S. ports: New York, Miami, Newark-Port Elizabeth, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and Baltimore. Politicians in affected states and cities have raised alarms in the media over vital infrastructure “falling into Arab hands.” Others in Washington are questioning the Bush administration’s quick approval of the sale and are working with local officials to block the takeover through legal and legislative channels. What is the primary objection critics cite? Critics point to the fact that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE and that the emirate was used as a financial and operational hub by al-Qaeda. Some say the UAE-owned company operating portions of U.S. ports could provide a link for terrorists to transport operatives and/or weapons into the United States. Congressman Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the Associated Press federal approval of the sale was focused on how the “company carries out its procedures, but it doesn’t go to who they hire, or how they hire people. They don’t address the underlying conditions, which is how are they going to guard against things like infiltration by al-Qaeda or someone else; how are they going to guard against corruption?” Does foreign ownership of terminals make ports more vulnerable? Not really, experts say. The UAE is considered a U.S. ally in the “war on terror,” and many experts see the fact that the 9/11 hijackers used the UAE as a hub are irrelevant. As Stephen Flynn, CFR’s Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies, points out, shoe-bomber Richard Reid was a British citizen, yet no objections were raised over the U.S. operations of P&O, a British company. Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) have indicated they will propose legislation banning the sale of terminal operations at U.S. ports to foreign entities. But the majority of port terminals across the country are foreign-run. For instance, more than 80 percent of the terminals in the largest U.S. port, the port of Los Angeles, are operated by foreign companies. Representative King’s objections over internal workings of DP World are more reasonable, experts say, but the same concerns could be raised over most other shipping companies, U.S.- and foreign-owned alike. Who runs DP World? The company is a state-owned entity of the UAE, a Persian Gulf monarchy. Yet many of its senior leaders are Americans, including the Chief Operating Officer Edward “Ted” H. Bilkey, who was sent to Washington to assuage fears over the companyÂ’s recent acquisition. A former DP World executive, David Sanborn, was recently nominated by the Bush administration to be the U.S. Maritime Administrator. With the $6.8 billion purchase of P&O, DP World is now the third-largest port-operator in the world. Was there any government oversight of the sale? The Bush administration signed off on the February 13 sale of P&O to DP World only after unanimous approval by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, a twelve-member, interagency body that evaluates the security implications of such transactions. Calls from lawmakers to reconsider the approval have come after the thirty-day period to raise objections had expired. WhatÂ’s the significance of a foreign company operating terminals in a U.S. port? While foreign and U.S. companies are able to lease terminals in American ports, the ports remain publicly owned. Each company is responsible for moving ships and goods in and out of their terminal, and may even hire a private security firm, but the U.S. Customs and Border Protection remains responsible for checking the cargo and the U.S. Coast Guard is charged with overseeing security. These responsibilities are mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. An analogous relationship may be seen in U.S. airports, where foreign airlines may lease a terminal, but the U.S. Transportation Security Administration is responsible for security. Which nationality will the workers be at the ports in question? The workers who load and unload cargo from ships at U.S. ports are represented by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), a powerful union that deals with shipping companies directly. Experts say shipping companies are often unaware of which workers will be present; this is controlled by union leaders, who tend to be Americans. While not as highly organized as the dock workers, experts say most private security personnel and shipping company staff at U.S. ports are also likely to be U.S. citizens. What are some other security concerns at U.S. ports? The greatest security concern is the estimated 9 million containers that enter U.S. ports every year. The volume is so vast, that only a small percentage of these containers can be effectively searched, Flynn says. In many ports from which U.S.-bound cargo originates, there is little security oversight, which makes it possible to fill a container with people or weapons intended to harm the United States. The gravest concern is that terrorists could smuggle a weapon of mass destruction into the United States in an unchecked container. Another growing concern is the vulnerability of shipments of liquefied natural gas—an increasingly important energy source—to terrorist attacks while in U.S. harbors. Why are the majority of U.S. ports operated by foreign companies? ….
  7. the president didnt make the business transaction with the foreign entity. a firm on the other side of the atlantic ocean did. anyway, what i said was, it’s too late now. he could have done something back then, but not much can be done now. except introducing new legislation. (which i already mentioned in my earlier post)

    Again, you are wrong.

    It doesn’t matter if he made the transaction or not.

    It doesn’t matter whether he could have done something back then or not.

    As I mentioned in MY earlier post, he still has the power to stop the transaction, and he has the power to do it now. And he has the power to do it without introducing any legislation. Legislation ALREADY EXISTS for the president to do so, if he so chooses to.

  8. Was there any government oversight of the sale?

    The Bush administration signed off on the February 13 sale of P&O to DP World only after unanimous approval by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, a twelve-member, interagency body that evaluates the security implications of such transactions. Calls from lawmakers to reconsider the approval have come after the thirty-day period to raise objections had expired

    from the site mentioned earlier.

    so with the existing rules and regulations, there isnt anything to stop this transaction from taking place.

  10. Was there any government oversight of the sale? The Bush administration signed off on the February 13 sale of P&O to DP World only after unanimous approval by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, a twelve-member, interagency body that evaluates the security implications of such transactions. Calls from lawmakers to reconsider the approval have come after the thirty-day period to raise objections had expired

    Obviously, there WASN’T any government oversight.

    Of course the thirty-day period had expired. NOBODY KNEW ABOUT IT. This was a secret deal, and all twelve members of this body are anonymous. That part you left out, interestingly enough.

    So how could lawmakers object over something that was kept a secret from them and nobody knew about it? You tell me. Not even BUSH knew about this deal his administration signed on to behind his back.

    I think we’re talking at cross-purposes. When you said “there is no way to get out of this”, I thought you meant there was nothing anyone could do, including the president. Maybe you just meant there is nothing anyone OTHER than the president can do. That remains to be seen. We know Bush wants the deal to go ahead. No one’s arguing that. But if you’re saying that there’s nothing Bush could do if he has a miraculous change of heart, that is not true. He has the power to stop this deal.

    This is important, because the Bush administration had said last week that there was nothing they could do to back out of the deal. This is a provable falsehood, but what else have we come to expect from them?

  11. Just casting another vote as a liberal who thinks Bush is right on this.

    Sigh. Karl Rove is a genius.

    Hey Bush, remember those 1,200 hundred Arab-Americans you’ve detained without access to a lawyer or a trial, some for years and some still in custody? Remember those thousands upon thousands of Arab-Americans you surveilled upon? Remember Iraq, that pre-emptive war and all the closed door meetings that led up to it, and all the contradictory information you disregarded and tried to cover up in order to make your case appear stronger than it was?

    Forget it. We forgive you. One little statement about the unequal treatment of Arabs – which must have felt like a new pair of shoes to you – can change hearts across America, you silver tongued devil, you.

  12. Lou Dobbs reported that — BIG SUEPRISE — both George Bush’s crook brother Neil and the Carlyle Group both have extensive business dealings with the United Arab Emirates.

    Shades of Fahrenheit 911?

  13. Vin, I hate to pick on you but you are providing a text-book example of fasle logic. Here is your logic:

    1) A person blieves that it is xenaphobia and polictical pandering to deny this sale to an Arab firm. 2) Bush also believes that it is unfair to hold an Arab firm up to a higher standard than a white-owned foreign firm. 3) Karl Rove has won and liberals across the land have been hypnotized. 4) These same hypnotized liberals have forgotten all the other injustices. 5) Sigh.

    Does this really make any sense to you? If it does then explain to me why you are any different than a far-left version of a right-wing nutjob. I could lay out similar logic to label you as such with a “sigh” at the end.

  14. Of course that logic doesn’t make sense. That’s why it wasn’t my logic, but rather your convoluted interpretation of my logic, thank you very much.

    So, let me elaborate. I find it very odd that any self-proclaimed liberal can’t see Bush’s concern for the plight of the unjustly picked upon Arab as hollow grandstanding, especially considering his miserable treatment of Arab-Americans in the past.

    And it’s also very odd that anyone would think Bush’s support for this deal is in the interest of unsullied fair trade, as if he or other members of his administration didn’t have a personal stake in this. And as more information comes out, it’s looking like it did.

    So, one statement and suddenly his motives are pure. Yup, I’m very suspicious. Shouldn’t you be?

  15. I find it very odd that any self-proclaimed liberal can’t see Bush’s concern for the plight of the unjustly picked upon Arab as hollow grandstanding, especially considering his miserable treatment of Arab-Americans in the past.

    I ain’t callin him a Reep cherub George Bush likes rich Arabs I ain’t sayin’ he’s a cash whore but he ain’t f* with no Arab poor

  16. So, let me elaborate. I find it very odd that any self-proclaimed liberal can’t see Bush’s concern for the plight of the unjustly picked upon Arab as hollow grandstanding

    Again, this doesn’t make any sense. When one grandstands the purpose is to win supporters and pacify one’s base. Standing up for this firm does neither. It only hurts Bush politically. Xenaphoic Republicans hate this deal and can speak out against it to win votes. The Democrats are willing to throw principle out the window in order to use this issue to nail Bush and also win votes by appearing tough on terrorism. So explain to me how this is grandstanding?

    I think this whole issue has nothing to do with Bush’s motives. I don’t think it was even on his radar until Congress made it an issue in order to win votes and some in the left (like you) are using it to nail Bush simply because he is Bush. Need more evidence? Here is what self-proclaimed liberal Maureen Dowd has to say on this (from her NY Times Op-ed):

    Maybe it’s corporate racial profiling, but I don’t want foreign companies, particularly ones with links to 9/11, running American ports.

    Are you kidding me? A true liberal would never advocate racial profiling in order to score points against Bush. I reject liberals who are selling out their principles just so they can nail Bush for once.

  17. Sorry, I haven’t read the whole thread so I might be repeating what somebody else has already said. The AP reported that the White House stated that Bush didn’t know about the decision until it was made. They also said that there was no elaborate security check. I think this was Bush’s people making a decision and Bush standing by them, rather than this being something well thought out in the way of a shift in strategy.

  19. Abhi, I almost missed this one but can’t let it go, especially since it comes from you and not the mouth of some crazy person:

    The Democrats are willing to throw principle out the window in order to use this issue to nail Bush and also win votes by appearing tough on terrorism.

    Like Cicatrix, I love you and almost always find myself agreeing with you. But this statement seems more than a bit unfair and needlessly cynical. Plenty of Democrats/liberals have been concerned about the state of security at the ports, as a matter of principle, for a long time. And plenty of them, as a matter of principle, oppose both outsourcing and foreign ownership in the context of security issues more generally. In 2001-02, it was the Democrats who insisted that the TSA screeners be federal employees, rather vigorously, in the face of Republican proposals to let them remain privatized as they had been before 9/11. Since then, Democrats have raised questions about the use of private contractors — American contractors — for detention, interrogation, and combat operations, as I noted in one of the earlier posts in this thread. The fact that it hasn’t become a political issue until the prospect of UAE ownership entered the picture is worth noting and talking about, so I certainly don’t criticize your raising the issue at all — to the contrary, I think you do a great service by making everyone pause and think about what motivates their reactions, and this post is a good example of why I have so much respect for this space that you all have created. But I don’t think that the mere fact that people are raising concerns automatically signals xenophobia, a lack of principle, or a crass desire to win votes.

    There are legitimate questions to discuss about private and foreign ownership in this context, including legitimate questions about foreign ownership by a UAE-controlled corporation — maybe not questions with foreordained answers, but legitimate questions nonetheless. And those concerns intersect with legitimate concerns about the Bush administration simply saying “trust us” (at best) and “you don’t care about security” (at worst) in response to efforts to engage critically in public deliberation about just about every serious issue of policy since 9/11, which they have done time and time and time again. Many Democrats have been resisting this all along, in all of the contexts I have noted and many others. Not everyone, and even those who have tried usually have failed to gain political/media traction, often miserably. But the fact that those issues have political salience right now in a way that they haven’t before doesn’t automatically mean that everyone has abandoned principle along the way.

    At the end of the day, if more information gets shared and discussed about port management and security outside of executive branch, maybe the right answer will indeed be that we shouldn’t be concerned about DPW ownership — I’m willing to reserve judgment on that, and in an environment in which the administration actually had faith in public deliberation, I think many more of the people raising concerns right now would as well. But especially when national security policy is being made in tremendous secrecy by a coterie of Bush/Cheney administration officials — who have proven their lack of competence day after day after day for several years now — it is neither shocking nor inexorably a sign of xenophobia that lots and lots of people would get outraged and want to know more information. And for a good number of them, that they would do so as a matter of principle.

    xoxo- ak

  20. it seems like Karl Rove figures this ish out in minutes as to how he wants to play things. regardless of other more relevent issues, politically, this seems to be helping Bush; take a look at what side he’s “on”; fighting to give people a fair shake regardless of ethnicity or religion

  21. also i might be wrong and this is not related to ports or whatnot but Dubai seems maddddd materialistic

  22. But I don’t think that the mere fact that people are raising concerns automatically signals xenophobia, a lack of principle, or a crass desire to win votes.

    Let me put it this way. If I was the Democratic Party Leader I would tell my “troops” to hit Bush hard on the port issue. But…I would go after the fact that port security in America (which falls under the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard) is incredibly weak. This is the single biggest national security concern I have. When they eventually hit us with a smuggled nuke, I can bet you it will be through a port. What I find offensive is any Congress-person (R or D)who plays on Xenaphobia to score political points. Some may consider me cynical but I believe this is exactly what we are seeing play out. I am a huge critic of the way that Republicans get people to vote for them by using fear and hate (as I’m sure are you). I have always voted Democrat. Therefore, I feel as a Democrat it is my duty to criticize my own party if I see them falling to the dark side. When I cast a vote in the next election I want it to be for a party that I believe in and not just a better alternative to the Republicans that use the same tactics as them. Let me give you an example of what I mean. Slate.com had a great article about conservative thinkers that have turned on Bush in order to guard what they think are true conservative principles (which have given way to rightwing nutjob principles). Similarly, I feel like I serve the interests of liberals and progressives in America better if I can use my voice to point out hypocrisy so that we maintain the moral highground. Far from being cynical I think I may be too idealistic in this case but I want to try. I don’t want to see the Dems take the cheap shot when there are plenty of real shots to take which just take a bit more work.

  23. If its of interest to anyone, DP world runs two major ports in India as well. And UAE isnt really a great friend of ours either, remember the IA hijacking in 1999 and who can forget that Dubai happens to Dawood Ibrahim’s favorite haunt

  24. What I find offensive is any Congress-person (R or D)who plays on Xenaphobia to score political points. Some may consider me cynical but I believe this is exactly what we are seeing play out….

    I have no doubt that this what we are seeing with some of these people. Perhaps where we differ is that I don’t think it’s true across the board — I think there are principled ways in which people can be concerned about this issue, and in trying to understand the extent to which one or the that is going on, I think that the broader political/policy context in which these issues are arising matters a great deal.

    I feel like I serve the interests of liberals and progressives in America better if I can use my voice to point out hypocrisy so that we maintain the moral highground…. I don’t want to see the Dems take the cheap shot when there are plenty of real shots to take which just take a bit more work.

    No disagreement from me on any of this. The question is whether we should automatically assume that everyone raising concerns about the ports in this context is leveling a cheap shot, or whether it is possible that some people actually have principled concerns that shouldn’t necessarily be lumped in with the xenophobes. I tend to think the latter more than you do, it seems, but again, I don’t at all fault you for raising an issue that should legitimately cause all of us to stop and consider, for example, whether unconscious bias might lie behind some of our reactions. But even reaching that conclusion is different from reaching the conclusion that someone is consciously a xenophobe, and the true answer might also be that there is no bias involved at all in some cases.

  25. I think there are valid arguments for both points of view on this controversy.

    I also hope that, if all this really is implemented and that control of the ports concerned is handed over to various firms in the UAE, then people’s trust and good faith in them does ultimately turn out to be justified and that the fears many people currently have turn out to be unwarranted.

    Otherwise, the following quote by Charlie Sheen’s character in Two and a Half Men comes to mind:

    “You’re like an Alzheimers patient in a [brothel]. You’re constantly surprised you’ve been screwed…..And you don’t want to pay for it.”

  26. Xenaphobia – Fear of Xena, the Warrior Princess Xenophobia – Fear of foreigners

    Now back to the main program…