Sunday, February 12, 2006

United Arab Emirates firm may oversee 6 U.S. ports :: AP

Here's the first sentence of an Associated Press report on Dubai Port World's takeover of P&O:
A company in the United Arab Emirates is poised to take over significant operations at six American ports as part of a corporate sale, leaving a country with ties to the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers with influence over a maritime industry considered vulnerable to terrorism.
The article has been published in the Washington Post, Seattle Times, Forbes, Baltimore Sun, Washington Times, Miami Herald, Houston Chronicle, ABC News, Sun Sentinel, and many others.

Saying the country is linked to 9/11 makes it sound as if a country can be held responsible for the actions of a few individuals.

More, from the same article:
DP World said it won approval from a secretive U.S. government panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry.
. . .
The State Department describes the UAE as a vital partner in the fight against terrorism. But the UAE, a loose federation of seven emirates on the Saudi peninsula, was an important operational and financial base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the FBI concluded. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) urged the administration to consider the sale carefully.
. . .
"It's in Dubai's interest to make sure this runs well," said James Lewis, who worked with the U.S. committee at the State and Commerce departments.

Stephen E. Flynn, who studies maritime security at the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, said even under foreign control, U.S. ports will continue to be run by unionized American employees. "You're not going to have a bunch of UAE citizens working the docks," Flynn said. "They're longshoremen, vested in high-paying jobs."
Yes, it's not likely that there will be "a bunch of UAE citizens working the docks."

UPDATE: Instapundit takes note and is "unimpressed". He's a homeland security hawk, and major figure in the blogosphere. Someone I count as a fellow traveler. But I disagree with him on this one. This isn't about homeland security; it's about being open to foreign investment. It's about unfettered markets. It's about the American institutions that make the U.S. the economic dynamo of the world. Americans are not especially smart or virtuous compared to other peoples. It's their institutions that make Americans exceptional. Some Arabs come along and want to invest in the U.S., and you want to change the rules so they can't? Nonsense. You're ditching the very principles you're trying to transfer.

Tags: , ,



Blogger sheikha cheryl said...


2:23 PM  
Blogger Keefieboy said...


2:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glenn Reynolds is a dimwitted Bushcolyte demagogue. (Sorry for the redundancy.)

11:29 AM  
Blogger John B. Chilton said...

anon @11:29

Glenn Reynolds is none of those. I invite you to back up your assertion. Since the so-called acolyte is disagreeing with his bishop (Bush) on this one, he doesn't sound much like an acolyte to me, or a demagogue. And he's clearly not dimwitted. At least not relative to you or me.

My conclusion is that you're simply frustrated with his influence in frustrating whatever your agenda is.

I invite you to refrain from pointless name calling, or to take it elsewhere.

11:47 AM  
Anonymous ex-reader said...

Well, putting aside one's opinions of Reynolds' intellect or Bush's policies, it is hard to deny that the newspaper article in question is demagogic, and so is Instapundit's endorsement of it. It is an appeal to a base emotion using flawed logic and dishonest misdirection. Did the 9/11 plotters move money through Dubai bankls? Yes. Did they move money through US banks? Uh, never mind, let's not ask that question.

I suspect, sir, that if you had never been to the UAE, you would be echoing Reynolds's endorsement, proclaiming about how al-Qaeda stooges and facilitators had just taken over a bunch of US ports, with the unspoken implication that they'll use that control to smuggle in bombs, terrorists or uranium. But now, armed with greater knowledge, you're arguing on the side of "common sense."

My "agenda" involves the promotion of individual liberty, free markets, property rights, the rule of law and international peace. And yes, every one of the tenets of my agenda is frustrated and abused on a daily basis by King George and his followers. If you had the same set of beliefs, you'd understand better. Call me wacky, but think there are higher goals than simply keeping a particular political party (any one) in power.

But, hey, if you're displeased by the presence of nonconforming voices in your echo chamber, I'll gladly go elsewhere.

2:36 PM  
Blogger John B. Chilton said...

I'll accept the echo chamber criticism as reasonably valid.

Probably ex-reader is not part of a recent concerted campaign to conflate Glenn Reynolds with Ann Coulter.

On the other hand, he or she may have fallen into a Rovian trap whereby "which vast reserves of potential activism are siphoned off into pointless hatred toward an obscure law professor who maintains a personal website."

2:59 PM  
Blogger John B. Chilton said... Moderate language isn't the same as moderation in ideas, of course. . . ."Personally, I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons."

See? Reynolds is part of the moderate middle.

12:53 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home