 |
|
 |
| [-] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Prev | List | Random | Next |
Pushback from an ignored but potentially injured third-party in the port deal-the UK:
The great Indian writer Khushwant Singh once penned a poignant story called Karma, about the plight of Indian elites under British colonialism. The protagonist, Sir Mohan Lal, wants only to be accepted as a gentleman. Impeccably dressed in his Savile Row suit and Balliol tie, brandishing a copy of The Times, he proudly takes his seat in the first-class compartment of a train - only to be accosted by a couple of drunken, loutish British soldiers who fling him out, seeing only a "wog".The rest is subscription only, but here's a central point:Whether they realise it or not, most critics of the sale of P&O, the UK-based port operator that owns five terminals on the US east coast, to Dubai Ports World, owned by the United Arab Emirates government, are just replaying the scene with different accents.
The causes of the furore are actually quite simple, and ugly. "Port management" sounds like something important, especially in the post-September 11 world, and many think it cannot be left to "wogs" - a reaction that has been encouraged by shameless politicians quick to recognise a chance for cheap demagoguery.And here's the conclusion:
Given the situation's political realities, it makes sense to delay finalising the deal briefly. In fact, the crisis creates a perfect opportunity for the president to educate the Congress and the public on what globalisation means in practice, how it generally benefits Americans and the world at large, and how wrong it is to lump all Arabs, Muslims and Middle Easterners into a scary, undifferentiated mass. The administration could also take lessons about the importance of approaching homeland security seriously and the danger of playing with demagogic fire across the board.Will any of this learning occur? If you think it will, I have a fantastic port to sell you.
The Financial Times has a hard time acknowledging that Bush is the voice of reason in this one. (The key for the anti-Bush crowd in this is to note the fact that he wasn't aware of the deal until afterwards - that might help diminish the distaste of arguing on "his side".)
But that makes two allies potentially alienated by the knee-jerk reaction to the ports deal - not to mention the clear message sent to other Arab countries.
Update:
The deck has truly been shuffled on this one, the metaphors thoroughly mixed, and strange bedfellows are discovering each other on every side of the fence.
In the New York Times Nicholas Kristof says
Even if you believe in racial profiling, you have to look beyond the profile. Senators talk about Dubai in dark tones that suggest they've never been there. Dubai is the Disneyland of the Arab world — it's the place people go to relax, to shop, to drink. It is staunchly pro-American and pro-business, and its vision of the Arab future is absolutely the opposite of Osama bin Laden's. If we want to encourage Arab modernization, we should be approving this deal — not engaging in quasi-racist scaremongering.But ultimately he maintains his "D" cred:
<...>
Suppose you were Osama bin Laden and wanted to set off a nuclear weapon or a "dirty bomb" in front of the U.S. Capitol. First you would bribe Russians with access to loosely secured nuclear materials.Then you would ship them to the U.S. — but the key step would occur in the foreign port: hiding the materials in the shipping container of a well-known and trusted exporter. If the container were shipped out of Rotterdam and seemed to contain Lego toys, for example, U.S. customs officials (who are now also based abroad) might not bother to examine it.
So even if agents of Al Qaeda infiltrate Dubai Ports World, and some manage to get U.S. visas and be stationed in Newark, it's not clear that they could help the plot.
Democrats have so many legitimate reasons to criticize President Bush — from ruining our nation's finances to despoiling American wilderness — that it's painful to see them scaremongering in just the way that Mr. Bush himself has.The Financial Times piece above also takes that jab, as have numerous other commenters struggling to come to grips with the fact that they agree with the U.S. President on this one. Sez the FT: "The irony here is that in many respects the Bush administration is reaping what it sowed, having previously played politics with homeland security and the war on terrorism, having blurred distinctions in the Muslim world by conflating the unrelated struggles against al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.."
Again, were I wanting to support the deal but not the administration, I'd repeat that the President didn't know until after the deal was done - in other words, the right decision was made because he wasn't in on it.
Because he's already on record on that other issue:
I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.)I heard that right the first time. He was serious. And therein lies a clue for those who would be taken seriously on security issues: be serious.
And as for "campaigning on scare tactics", the last Presidential election was actually a referendum on gay marriage, remember?
