Arab Emirate ownership of U.S. ports?
When Michael Savage and Hillary Clinton are on the same side of an issue, you know something funny is going on. I am referring to the bipartisan (though Democrat-sparked) furor over a UAE state-owned company's winning bid on six major U.S. ports. Republicans are increasingly joining the fight, in favor of blocking the deal.
On one hand, it's the Lou Dobbs vs. most other Republicans issue: Does foreign ownership of U.S. property affect national security? Dobbs, of course, says yes. More specifically, though, this is about the ports. Does it matter that a company from a country with a less-than-UK status in the War on Terror wants to own a potentially vulnerable piece of the American border?
What if the Saudis wanted to own a few major American airports?
The seeming role reversal on this (Republicans vs. Democrats), I believe, is rooted in the conservative support for relatively unrestrained capitalism. We see this regularly in China issues. Pat Buchanan and a few others (Savage) have dissented, but they are in the minority of their party.
I do wonder, though, how much of a role a port owner really plays. Fox owns Myspace, a Japanese company used to own Rockefeller Center, and GE has NBC. Has content been affected? It doesn't seem so, but the potential for change - or in the case of ports, security breaches - is what is causing alarm.
On one hand, it's the Lou Dobbs vs. most other Republicans issue: Does foreign ownership of U.S. property affect national security? Dobbs, of course, says yes. More specifically, though, this is about the ports. Does it matter that a company from a country with a less-than-UK status in the War on Terror wants to own a potentially vulnerable piece of the American border?
What if the Saudis wanted to own a few major American airports?
The seeming role reversal on this (Republicans vs. Democrats), I believe, is rooted in the conservative support for relatively unrestrained capitalism. We see this regularly in China issues. Pat Buchanan and a few others (Savage) have dissented, but they are in the minority of their party.
I do wonder, though, how much of a role a port owner really plays. Fox owns Myspace, a Japanese company used to own Rockefeller Center, and GE has NBC. Has content been affected? It doesn't seem so, but the potential for change - or in the case of ports, security breaches - is what is causing alarm.
posted by bp at
10:17 AM
2 Comments:
I don't think foreign ownership plays much of a role outside of who reaps the profits. Security's provided by US LE.
Besides, I view this furor as being a bit of a straw man. It's a win-win for republicans. The President looks like he's objective and impartial and willing to promote the integration of Arab states into the US economy, and republicans up for re-election get to decry this security risk (which really isn't).
By
t'su, at 9:37 AM
Dubai has been a pretty solid ally for a while, and really has little or nothing to do with the fact that two 9/11 bombers were residents there... I mean, all the 7/11 bombers were UK residents, Muriel Degauque was Belgian, etc. Residency doesn't mean state support.
Basically there isn't much logical ground to stand on to oppose this port deal. That's why the bureaucrats let it fly - they weren't thinking about the political implications or perceptions, just reality. Ownership has little to do with management.
The gut instinct, however, is what causes folks to question this. Something about it, even to me, doesn't seem right. Maybe it's just stereotypes, but maybe it makes sense. But that might not justify the harm this will do to our image as free-traders and our desired image of being a friend to Arabs.
By
bp, at 5:41 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home