> Well, on the merits, if we want to have that actual discussion, this is a
> situation of a foreign government owning key port property, not just any
> old
> multinational corporation. So you have a government, which was one of
> only
> THREE COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD that recognized the Taliban regime, owning
> it.
> That is exactly the issue that those opposing the deal have emphasized,
> not
> just that the company is registered in some other country. And as I
> posted,
> Dems have been highlighting tougher port security for many years and have
> specifically attacked outsourcing at airports and ports, partly for
> security
> reasons and partly as a pro-labor position to keep low-wage employers out
> of
> those institutions.
[...]
> So no, I have no desire to further close relationships between the US and
> the UAE, including the free trade agreement that Bush is negotiating with
> the UAE. Hopefully, the port conflict blows up that trade deal and
> strains
> that global corporate oil alliance.
==========================================
What is being overlooked in this controversy is that the UAE already
provides port facilities and services for the US Navy operating in the the
Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. It is UAE nationals who manage the ports,
provision the vessels, and are responsible for security. In the US, even
though Dubai WP would have owned the port facilities, the services and
security for the ships using them would still have been provided by American
personnel. So if security is such a concern, why hasn't the servicing of US
Navy ships by Arabs in Emirate ports, where they are most vulnerable to
attack, ever been an issue for the Congress? No wonder its sudden appearance
as an issue now is being seen as cheap demagogery by congressional
representatives, not least the Democrats, pandering to anti-Arab
prejudices within the American population.