Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Minimal Techno's Unlikely Root... | Dean's Speech »

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

I agree

Posted by on February 21 at 15:40 PM

It’s rare that I find myself agreeing with spokespeople for President Bush, but this huge controversy that’s erupted because an Arab company is taking over operations at several American port terminals… Well, I can see how Arabs taking over our ports sounds like a bad thing, if one assumes all Arabs are a security risk, and if one thought all American ports were run by Americans until today.

And I can also see how this is an appealing controversy for Democrats, who are desperate to put a chink in the Republicans’ “We defend America best” armor.

But, uh….

The White House appeared stunned by the uprising, over a transaction that they considered routine — especially since China’s biggest state-owned shipper runs major ports in the United States, as do a host of other foreign companies. Mr. Bush’s aides defended their decision, saying the company, Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates, would have no control over security issues.

Some administration officials, refusing to be quoted by name, suggested that there was a whiff of racism in the objections to an Arab owner taking over the terminals. The current operator of the six American terminals, P&O Port, is owned by the British company that Dubai Ports World is acquiring. The ports include those in New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia, as well as New York…

Opposition to the deal drew a similarly intense expression of befuddlement by shipping industry and port experts.

The shipping business, they said, went global more than a decade ago and across the United States, foreign-based companies already control more than 30 percent of the port terminals.

That inventory includes APL Limited, which is controlled by the government of Singapore, and which operates terminals in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Globally, 24 of the top 25 ship terminal operators are foreign-based, meaning most of the containers sent to the United States leave terminals around the world that are operated by foreign government or foreign-based companies.

“This kind of reaction is totally illogical,” said Philip Damas, research director at Drewry Shipping Consultants of London. “The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant.”


CommentsRSS icon

It's more than a whiff of racism. Clinton and Schumer ought to be ashamed.

And it's yet another example of how, at the core, Bush 43 is just like Bush 41 (globalist, pro-free-trade, anti-isolationism), no matter how much he tries to obscure it with the homeland security or God talk.

so does this make it somehow wrong for liberals to sit back and laugh as Bush's anti-arab bigotry comes back to bite him in the ass in the form of his party's own rabid winger base?

not to mention that Treasury Secretary John Snow has his corrupt hands in on the deal (the company he chaired, CSX, was sole to DP World in 2004) and that Bush recently appointed the head of DP's European and Latin American operations, David Sanborn, to head the US Maritime Administration.

Still plenty here for lefties to be outraged about. Once again, it's about the corporate cronyism and lack of oversight.

A whiff of racism? Y'all really want to go into that battle considering what you printed in your paper a couple of weeks ago?

joshua please resume licking my nuts

And plus, these are guys from Dubai. These are the same people building islands in the Persian Gulf for tourist dollars. I really don't anybody in the UAE has much to gain from terrorist attacks on the US.

Islam is a race?

And we can let Bin Landen Const. Lmt. bid on defense plants.

Wonder what the Bush cut is going to the off shore accounts?

“The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant.â€

If this is true then countries and laws are irrelevant because there will is no way to police anyone. Can we rely on corporate benevolence?

Is it really "racism" to ask if the UAE is a reasonable business partner when it comes to domestic, not overseas, security. The owners of this new company is a government including persons who have facilitated the operations and growth of Al-Qaeda, something Sadam Hussein never did. Are we to bow down to the notion that all corportations are, by philosophy and values of capitalism, neutral in matters of security because they just want to make a peaceful profit?

Sure we can trust them. After all the place is ruled by the non elected Council of the Emirs - aka Feudal Lords.

Great system for running the country, something like the system Bush is trying to put in place. I can name Paul, Dick, George, Don, Carl .......

Is that not our very own ruling council of Feuday Chiefs ...... or have I spent too much time thinking the Sranger is pro democracy.

I hate any but Drag Kings. Some of my grannys' family received a land grant from Gov. of Virginia Patrick Henry for good service in deposing one.

Even then slavery was a question and they moved to Indiana for a better place to live, slave free.

Moe modern, I didn't like it when we went to war to protect the Oil of the King of
Kuwait. Just don't like the system of no vote, no civil rights, no democracy.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).