I just don't get it. I've held off posting about the transfer of "management power" of some of the United States' ports from a British company to a company from the United Arab Emerites because I didn't really have an opinion (shocking, I know!). Well, I've found a few in the deep recesses of my brain and I'd like to share them:
All of the articles I've read have said something similar to the following regarding the sale of the British company: "The [Bush] administration approved the sale of British firm P&O, which manages six U.S. ports, to Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates." Nearly every article has used the term "approved." Excuse me? "Approve?" What are we doing approving of a business transaction between a British company and an UAE company? "The Japanese government recently blocked the sale of [inset USA company here] to [insert Chinese company here] because they disapproved of it." We'd be all over that! I can understand the US telling the Dubai company that we don't desire their services, but we have no place "approving" or "disapproving" of any such merger.
Secondarily, I am (once again) hearing two different and conflicting statements from the political left. Since 2001, they have been the loudest in regard to "racial profiling." It's due to their insistence that my 90 year old Irish grandmother got strip searched at airport security, when the man with a fuse sticking out of his shoe walked through because he was wearing a turban. And yet, these are the loudest people decrying this "security risk" because a company from the Middle East is responsible for managing ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans (is there much of a port left?), and Miami. Make up your mind! Either we don't use racial profiling and we treat every person the same, or we are wary of Middle Eastern people, we screen them more heavily at airports, and we deny them the ability to manage our ports. You can't have it both ways just so you can continue to bash this administration.
This issue is wrong on so many levels. We have no business telling these businesses what they can or cannot do. However, we should probably find another company to manage these ports. But, once again, this is all just my opinion.
12 comments:
Ok, first of all, is "Secondarily" a word?
Secondly, did your grandmother really get strip searched at an airport? If so, that is just the most horrible thing I've ever heard!
Although I do not think that our government should (would) go to the extreme of implementing concentration camps (Japanese-Americans during WWII) they should certainly be able to single out Arabic people for searching of any kind. It is not a secret that the Arabs bombed the towers.
First of all, Secondarily is a word.
Secondarily, my grandmother was not strip searched. In fact, none of my grandparents lived long enough to see the towers fall. However, my wife has been singled out for a more detailed screening more than once. (The grandmother line was for emphasis...)
Likewise not a secret that a white guy bombed the Federal building.
This whole issue keeps getting more and more complicated. Now the administration made some sort of deal with the company and Bush found out through news broadcasts that it was happening... Weird!
I'm actually suprised you're not all over this issue because of it's correlation to terrorism.
From NPR:
"The reason this deal is attracting so much attention is that Dubai Ports is owned by an Arab government that has links to terrorism. The United Arab Emirates was home to two of the Sept. 11 hijackers and was a financial base for the operation. UAE has also been implicated in a nuclear smuggling ring: It was identified as a transfer point for nuclear components from Pakistani scientists to Iran, Libya and North Korea."
So, if I'm hearing you rightly, in many of your posts you are saying the world should join the US in our global "war on terror." But here when it is in terms of business, everyone should shut up and let the deal fly, even if it presents a potential security risk. I think what the "political left" is asking for is a bit of research into this company (noting their shady history) and the business transaction before we blindly walk into this. Better this way than to go into it and do the research after the fact. One would think we'd learned after the Iraq WMD fiasco.
I've no idea where racial profiling falls into this, and though I'm not suprised, i've still amazed that you've allowed the political left to be the fall guy here. Me thinks you have a great bias here.
James, please don't misunderstand. I didn't have enough info to venture an opinion about the actual merger/buyout. I was simply pointing out an inconsistency I saw from the left of the aisle.
I didn't realize that this company was owned by the gov't. That does change things. It's different profiling a gov't rather than a company.
I don't think it's a good idea to continue to use this company. But my understanding is that there is a bi-partisan committee that "oks" such mergers. Am I incorrect?
I completely agree. I do not know why he is offhandedly claiming that he will veto any delay.
I say: find another company. Why do we need to use this company. Aren't contracts null and void if the company they were made with are bought out or merged?
And I will confess that I have not thoroughly researched the issue either. My understanding however is that operations at six U.S. ports (New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami and New Orleans) will be handed over to a company owned by Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
And Bush threatening his first ever Presidential veto upon any legislative effort to delay the takeover. My feeling is that the US should carefully review any such port takeover especially as it involes a country that is "home to two of the Sept. 11 hijackers and . . . has also been implicated in a nuclear smuggling ring."
So NPR this morning discussed the issue of ports being managed and controlled.
Historically the US shipping and freight companies moved into more profitable businesses than dealing with ports and the management of them. On the other hand places like Singapore and UAE, maybe Hong Kong (but they weren't mentioned in the news piece) geographically controled major port areas and thus invested in technologies for managing ports. Basically, there aren't US companies in this business anymore, only foreign companies (like the one owned by the UAE or the British company). More found here
My bad, the correct link is
here
We import 20% of our oil from Middle Eastern nations.
China owns over $300 billion of our federal debt, more than any other single nation.
My question: doesn't it seem just a little hypocritical that a UAE company taking control of a portion of operations at six U.S. ports causes such outrage, when these travesties are completely ignored? Where's the outrage about these issues? We don't let China buy Unocal - fine - but we'll give them enough economic power to single-handedly tank the U.S. dollar on a whim?
Post a Comment