Dumb Politicians Win
Have never thought that politicians, in any country, are very smart. And have never been too impressed by the current US President. A President that's been very busy ruining as many relationships with the rest of the world as possible, alienating the people who's support would be critical in the "war on terror". Yet, when it comes to the DPW (no, not Dumb Politicians Win, but Dubai Ports World) deal, he's been almost the only voice of reason in Washington. In a recent speech, he said: "In order to win the war on terror, we've got to strengthen our relationships and friendships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East." How true. But why isn't that happening, and what's the big deal about?
DP World, a firm owned by the Dubai government, spending US$7 Billion buying P&O, a British firm that operates six major American ports and several smaller ones. The [US] public are outraged. Never mind that the UAE is an American ally, or that port security will remain in federal hands, or that a port-management firm has a financial interest in not blowing up the ports it manages.
After a US Government committee approved the deal in mid-February, pretty much everybody's gone crazy over it. Not that they really seem to understand it; but that's unfortunately not a requirement when it comes to having an opinion. First, there was anger that key people (read: Congress) didn't know about the deal. Ehhh... Do they read publications other than National Enquirer in D.C.? Or at least, do a single staff of any member of Congress read a publication like The Economist? After all, they've written about the deal since early December. Hence, it was hardly news out of the blue when the deal was approved.
An Australian I know (who's worn out more passports than the rest of us combined, lived in numerous countries and don't seem to have enough pages in his passport for all his visas and stamps), emailed me his comment :
"The Dubai Ports issue is hilarious, isn't it? How completely just that Bush gets hammered by congressmen whose crack-pot sense of 'security' is even more unbalanced than his! The issue is not a new one in the USA (and considering what de Villepin is doing to protect Suez, not unique to the USA). I can remember when Sony bought Universal Studios in the 1980s: the way people around Washington talked about Japan you'd have thought the second world war was still on. Little did they understand that the real danger lurking in the shadows was from Australia: Rupert Murdoch ... who bought Fox Studios."
Are Americans really safer now that the deal has been killed? Well, look at the incentives involved. If something happens at (or to containers shipped through) a port terminal operated by a US owned company, what do they have to lose? Nothing. Blame it on the terrorists. If, on the other had, something similar takes place at a port terminal operated by DPW, they would have had everything to lose. Which is why they would be willing to spend lots of money to upgrade the ports, improve security, etc. Simply because they have absolutely everything to lose if something goes wrong. But no, can't let the operate the terminals (that's right, that's all they would do: operate terminals. In charge of security? US Coast Guard and Customs and Border Control).
I read an assessment by Armada Corporate Intelligence today: "It is hard to fathom a more destructive and negative outcome to this situation. Ignorance, obfuscation and outright lies have carried the day and in the process the President has been weakened, important allies have been insulted and snubbed, US business interests have been compromised all over the world and the US has been positioned as a protectionist and racist nation. But on the bright side some politicians have picked up some additional voter support from people who willing to accept the deception promulgated about DPW and the port deal. [...] The US is sliding into a dangerous pattern of isolationism marked by the clarion call of security. The sad fact is that security is only weakened by this process. The heroes in Congress have saved us from DPW's investment
but they still have not invested one additional dollar in the Coast Guard's effort to provide port security."
Finally, read this article, and the last paragraph in particular:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/09/greenfield.portpolitics/index.html
DP World, a firm owned by the Dubai government, spending US$7 Billion buying P&O, a British firm that operates six major American ports and several smaller ones. The [US] public are outraged. Never mind that the UAE is an American ally, or that port security will remain in federal hands, or that a port-management firm has a financial interest in not blowing up the ports it manages.
After a US Government committee approved the deal in mid-February, pretty much everybody's gone crazy over it. Not that they really seem to understand it; but that's unfortunately not a requirement when it comes to having an opinion. First, there was anger that key people (read: Congress) didn't know about the deal. Ehhh... Do they read publications other than National Enquirer in D.C.? Or at least, do a single staff of any member of Congress read a publication like The Economist? After all, they've written about the deal since early December. Hence, it was hardly news out of the blue when the deal was approved.
An Australian I know (who's worn out more passports than the rest of us combined, lived in numerous countries and don't seem to have enough pages in his passport for all his visas and stamps), emailed me his comment :
"The Dubai Ports issue is hilarious, isn't it? How completely just that Bush gets hammered by congressmen whose crack-pot sense of 'security' is even more unbalanced than his! The issue is not a new one in the USA (and considering what de Villepin is doing to protect Suez, not unique to the USA). I can remember when Sony bought Universal Studios in the 1980s: the way people around Washington talked about Japan you'd have thought the second world war was still on. Little did they understand that the real danger lurking in the shadows was from Australia: Rupert Murdoch ... who bought Fox Studios."
Are Americans really safer now that the deal has been killed? Well, look at the incentives involved. If something happens at (or to containers shipped through) a port terminal operated by a US owned company, what do they have to lose? Nothing. Blame it on the terrorists. If, on the other had, something similar takes place at a port terminal operated by DPW, they would have had everything to lose. Which is why they would be willing to spend lots of money to upgrade the ports, improve security, etc. Simply because they have absolutely everything to lose if something goes wrong. But no, can't let the operate the terminals (that's right, that's all they would do: operate terminals. In charge of security? US Coast Guard and Customs and Border Control).
I read an assessment by Armada Corporate Intelligence today: "It is hard to fathom a more destructive and negative outcome to this situation. Ignorance, obfuscation and outright lies have carried the day and in the process the President has been weakened, important allies have been insulted and snubbed, US business interests have been compromised all over the world and the US has been positioned as a protectionist and racist nation. But on the bright side some politicians have picked up some additional voter support from people who willing to accept the deception promulgated about DPW and the port deal. [...] The US is sliding into a dangerous pattern of isolationism marked by the clarion call of security. The sad fact is that security is only weakened by this process. The heroes in Congress have saved us from DPW's investment
but they still have not invested one additional dollar in the Coast Guard's effort to provide port security."
Finally, read this article, and the last paragraph in particular:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/09/greenfield.portpolitics/index.html
posted by Håkon at
12:43 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home