Controlling the ports first

The wave of illogical but wary reactions continue; fresh after the Mohammad cartoon issue, attention has shifted back to Islamic countries-Western world relations. It appears that operations of six big U.S. ports has been sold to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. P&O, a major container-handling company was bought over by Dubai Ports World (DPW) and will be responsible for much of port activities in continental United States.

A Gulf country controlling one of America’s most vulnerable frontiers? The case seems to be politically doomed if put across that way. Especially since UAE was one of the three countries that officially recognized the Taliban government and was instrumental in channeling money for the 9/11 attacks; or so claim the decision’s detractors. Politically, it would be akin for India’s ports to be handled by a Pakistani company. However, things get even murkier when you realize that the company in question is not a private company but instead owned by the government of UAE. Libertarians will argue that it is simply a business transaction; two companies responsible for doing a particular activity exchanging goods in a free market. I agree and probably most fears are unfounded. Probably the fears arise from irrational prejudice and being fearful of the sale is just being too xenophobic. The port workers would be all American union members and port security would still be handled by the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs; only the business operations are outsourced.

Everything seems okay on paper but still fears persist. The surprising fact — most of the criticism seems to be coming from the conservatives i.e. Bush’s camp. Is it irrational to fear an Al Qaeda breach just because port operations are handled by a UAE company? And doesn’t this also remind you of the Mittal deal in Europe?

Tweet This“Controlling the ports first” [Short URL: http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=1085] was published Thursday, February 23rd, 2006 at 12:00 am by Patrix, filed under Business, Current Affairs. Both comments and linkbacks are closed.

«
»

Related Posts

  1. Update
  2. Controlling AIDS in India a success?
  3. Picking faults in Wall·E

  • http://www.lifeandsomething.blogspot.com Gaurav

    Patrix,

    I think the protest is a bipartisan effort. Even Chuck Schumer (No friend of W) is against the deal.

    It is certainly an issue of fear, but whether I am not sure it is justified or not. P&O is a reputed company and while I do not think that there is any case of deliberate conspiracy, whether it makes system more vulnerable to sabotage is anyone’s guess.

    I don’t think libertarians principles have any relevance on this, from what I understand libertarian arguments are solely economic, whereas the issue here is political/security related.

    Also opposition to Laxmi Mittal and this case are so different that analogy doesn’t stick

    Regards

  • http://curiousgawker.blogspot.com/ gawker

    The protests as well as the backing for Bush’s action is coming from the wrong motivations. Most Democrats are opposing it due to security reasons. I think they should concentrate more on why Bush is doing it, because for him to take such a strong stance on it, it has to be a compelling reason. Yesterday Lou Dobbs had a segment where he talked about the ties of DPW with the Bush administration including some through the Carlyle Group which has basically bailed Bush out a couple of times. The question is, if a company was selected through chronyism, how good could the vetting process have been? And that raises the security question. Plus, if Bush didn’t know about this till a week ago as he claims (which is probably a lie just like everything he says), how can you even trust what he says about the company being clean?

    Secondly, Conservatives are now opposing it just because the democrats are opposing it and they dont want to be left behind in the jingoism department. Some are, of course, being xenophobic. But the greatest joke is on American Arabs who are supporting it just because it’s an Arab company. If they looked behind the scenes at why this company got the contract, they wouldn’t be so happy about it. The way this issue has developed over the past few days is a fine microcosm of the superficiality and opportunism in American politics in general.

  • http://www.themaanga.blogspot.com Nilu

    Fact Check 1 – Bush is no conservative. Not by his own admission. Even if he were to call himself that, the conservative’s don’t.

  • Pingback: The Chaoszone Weblog

  • http://ipatrix.com Patrix

    Gaurav, libertarian principles are definitely at play here since it is purely a business transaction that the government cannot regulate unless the parties concerned are doing something illegal. The comparison to Laxmi Mittal is also apt here because the core fears are rooted in American’s distrust of Arabs as the Europeans distrust non-Europeans taking over their companies. Note that most of this distrust might not be blatantly stated. Similarly, the protests from the Democrats and the Republicans stem from the conservative (political as opposed to economical) sides of the parties.

    Gawker, I agree that protests and support stems from the fact whether you like Bush or not. But if ties even if they are tenuous exist between Bush and the UAE company a la Caryle Group, then the protests are warranted.

  • http://www.twentyonwards.blogs.com Jatin

    DP world runs two major ports in India and they arent really great allies of ours as they seem to be to Bush. Yet we still allow them to run our ports, even after the 1999 IA hijacking and not to forget, Dubai is Dawood Ibrahim’s fav. haunt.

  • http://ipatrix.com Patrix

    Jatin, that was what I was trying to say. Business interests triumph everything else.


Copyright © 2012 Nerve Endings Firing Away. Designed by ckunte. Powered by WordPress.