Posted on 02/22/2006 8:01:35 AM PST by presidio9
Some members of Congress, exhibiting post-9/11 jingoism and paranoia, are pressuring the Bush administration to reconsider its decision to allow Dubai Ports World, an Arab company, to take over operations at six U.S. ports. The approval should stand.
Congressman Peter T. King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee and, more importantly, a Congressman from an area near two of the ports that will be operated by Dubai Ports World, expressed this xenophobic view about Dubai’s acquisition of the British company that is currently operating the ports: “In the post-9/11 world, there should have been a presumption against this company.”
Why? Because two of the 9/11 hijackers happened to be from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), the country in which the company is based. Yet the British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, was allowed to operate the ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Miami, and New Orleans, despite Richard Reid’s (the infamous “shoe bomber”) British citizenship. And American companies are permitted to operate some U.S. ports despite the fact that Timothy McVeigh, Jose Padilla, and other U.S. citizens are convicted or accused terrorists. For that matter, how do we know that even an American company running the ports would be immune from terrorist infiltration?
In fact, since two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE, Dubai Ports World might even have a stronger interest in operating safe and secure ports than companies from other nations. Dubai has a worldwide presence, an extensive history of operating ports, and a reputation to uphold. If a terrorist incident occurred in one of its ports, the company would probably lose more business worldwide than a non-Arabic company would under the same circumstances.
The company should be evaluated on its qualifications to operate the ports, not on McCarthy-like litmus tests for Arabs or the UAE. Besides, although Dubai Ports World will operate the ports, U.S. federal and local authorities will remain in charge of security.
Members of Congress such as Congressman King and New York Senator Charles E. Schumer certainly get points with their New York constituents for defending the nation against the onslaught by “Arab terrorists,” and perhaps trying to protect U.S. companies from foreign competition as well.
But if Arab companies truly cannot be trusted to operate U.S. ports, then shouldn’t they be banned from all involvement with U.S. airports, farming, electrical generation, water works, nuclear power plants, chemical, biomedical, and pharmaceutical production, and tunnel, bridge, stadium, and skyscraper construction? Extending this flawed logic further, perhaps even airlines from Arab countries should be banned from landing at U.S. airports because they might be used in terrorism or bring terrorists into the United States — in spite of the fact that the planes used on 9/11 were U.S. airliners.
After 9/11, U.S. authorities incarcerated and questioned people based on their Arabic nationalities and Islamic religion. The vast majority of them had no connection to terrorism or the 9/11 attacks. This was widely perceived to have been an overreaction. Yet more than four years after 9/11, this racial and ethnic profiling has now moved from individuals to businesses. The Bush administration was right to insist that no security threat emanated from a routine business purchase of a British firm by an Arab company. The politicians should quit posturing and move on to more important issues.
Profile: Ivan Eland is a Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute, Director of the Institute’s Center on Peace & Liberty, and author of the books The Empire Has No Clothes, and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy. Email comments to ieland@independent.org.
ping
There is some prejudice here, from the "kill all the ay-rabs, nuke Mecca" crowd.
But there are also legitimate concerns about security.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1583009/posts
Flashback - December 13, 2004: Dubai, U.A.E., Joins U.S. Container Security Initiative (State Dept.) US Department of State ^ | December 13. 2004
Posted on 02/21/2006 2:43:48 PM PST by new yorker 77
Becomes first Mideast port to participate in U.S. program
The United Arab Emirates has joined the U.S. Container Security Initiative (CSI) to help secure maritime cargo shipments against the threat of terrorism.
In a December 12 news release, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) said the agreement will enable all cargo destined for the United States through the port of Dubai to be prescreened.
CBP will station a small team of officers at Dubai ports to identify sea containers destined for the United States; Dubai customs officials will be responsible for screening containers identified as potential terrorist risks, the U.S. agency said.
Dubai Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation is the sixth-largest port operator in the world and the first in the Middle East to join the CSI, according to the news release.
To date, governments representing 21 countries around the world have signed up to the CSI program, launched by the United States following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Following is the text of the news release:
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Department of Homeland Security
First Middle Eastern Port Formally Commits to Target, Pre-Screen and Secure Cargo Destined for the U.S.
12/12/2004
Dubai, UAE -- Today Dubai Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation joined the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) Container Security Initiative [CSI] making it the first Middle Eastern port to participate. CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner and Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, Executive Chairman of the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation, signed a declaration of principles to acknowledge the agreement that will enable all cargo destined for the U.S. through the port of Dubai to be targeted and pre-screened.
"The threat of terrorism is real and, it's a global threat. Dubai Customs recognizes the absolute importance of protecting cargo against the terrorist threat. I applaud their bold action of assuming a leadership role in the Middle East," said Commissioner Bonner.
CBP will deploy a small team of officers to the port of Dubai, the 6th largest port operator in the world whose mission will be to target sea containers destined for the United States. Dubai Customs officials, working with CBP officers, will be responsible for screening any containers identified as a potential terrorist threat.
The primary purpose of CSI is to help protect the global trading system and the trade routes between CSI ports and the United States. By collaborating with foreign customs administrations, CBP is working towards a safer, more secure world trading system.
Under CSI, CBP has entered into bi-lateral partnerships with other governments to identify high-risk cargo containers and to pre-screen them before they are loaded on vessels destined for the United States. Today, governments representing 21 countries have signed up to implement CSI.
"I congratulate the Dubai Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation on this historic event. They are now partnering with the United States and are a leader in protecting the global trading system," said Ambassador to the UAE [United Arab Emirates] Michele Sison.
CSI did not exist before 9/ll. It was proposed by Commissioner Bonner and launched in January 2002. CSI has been accepted globally as a bold and revolutionary initiative to secure maritime cargo shipments against the terrorist threat. This initiative will continue to expand to strategic locations around the world.
The World Customs Organization (WCO), the European Union (EU), and the G8 [Group of Eight major industrialized economies] support CSI expansion and have adopted resolutions implementing CSI security measures introduced at ports throughout the world.
The 32 operational ports in Europe, Asia, Africa, and North America include: Halifax, Montreal, and Vancouver, Canada; Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Le Havre, France; Bremerhaven and Hamburg, Germany; Antwerp and Zeebrugge, Belgium; Singapore; Yokohama, Tokyo, Nagoya, and Kobe, Japan; Hong Kong; Goteborg, Sweden; Felixstowe, Liverpool, Southampton, Thamesport, and Tilbury, United Kingdom; Genoa, La Spezia, Naples, and Gioia Tauro, Italy; Busan, Korea; Durban, South Africa; Port Klang and Tanjung Pelepas, Malaysia; Piraeus, Greece; Algeciras, Spain; and Laem Chabang, Thailand.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with the protection of our nation's borders. CBP unified Customs, Immigration, and Agriculture Inspectors and the Border Patrol into one border agency for the United States.
This guy must be Al Gore's speechwriter.
Come on, Ivan. Go the whole ten yards and call him a "racist."
A lot here makes a lot of sense.
Oh crap, I forgot to put my flameproof suit on! There.
FReepers Respond:
"Should a state-owned Arab company be allowed to manage six major United States seaports?
No
60.0%
Yes
26.2%
Undecided
13.8%"
It's bigger than that. How about the fact that Dubai Ports World is owned by the UAE government, the same UAE government that was one of the few in the world that officially recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan; or that they're an enemy of our ally Israel; or that they fund CAIR; and so forth.
This article is a long argument with a strawman.
I think I'm leaning toward favoring this deal, but let's not oversimplify the reasons for opposing it: it's intellectually dishonest.
'But if Arab companies truly cannot be trusted to operate U.S. ports, then shouldn’t they be banned from all involvement with U.S. airports, farming, electrical generation, water works, nuclear power plants, chemical, biomedical, and pharmaceutical production, and tunnel, bridge, stadium, and skyscraper construction?'
Yes.
King should be choking on his hypocrisy. He was one of the biggest US supporters of the murderous IRA when they were blowing up automobiles and killing Brits on London streets.
Sure there is, but this is what liberals do. They find a small part of a larger story that is scary, and they fixate on it. And the next thing you know, you have people who never before gave a damn about national security speculating on the Huffington post that a president who is already a wealthy man sold out or nation's safty to oil interests for personal profit. The President was right to draw a line in the sand. I wish the people here who have chosen to get into bed with Hillary Clinton before all the details were available luck in the morning. As usual, I'm sure this was motivated by her granite-like moral compass.
Race Card bump
But those poor downtrodden multibillion dollar corporations need all the protection they can get. LOL
Which free market or legal principle have been abandoned?
Call a spade a spade. This is not "playing the race card." This is admitted racism. The question is whether you approve of that sort of thing, not whether that is what is happening.
Oh yeah. Give up the ground because of an emotional issue called racism.
The muzzies are using racism and accomodation for their specific behaviors as the launch pad for further control and manipulation of people who have different beliefs.
Utilizing intimidation and threats of violence they gain inroads towards cultural preferences over other established traditions and scrutiny. To muzzies it is all one big misunderstanding and if we "listen" to them we will better understand them.
Their definition of "listen" means compliance. Compliance is the only way to resolve the misunderstanding of their cultural and religous practices.
Basic intellectual decision reveals to people when a threat to their well being is identified. Allowing the emotional term "racism" to interfere with basic instincts for survival is bad judgement. We never should have to align ourselves with a belief or group or culture as simply a form of accomodation if we disagree with their methods or doctrine. Freedom to choose our associations carefully is the most basic of freedoms.
The word "racism" neutralizes that freedom to choose associations, regardless of the outcome of the association.
We do what is best for our individual survival, not the survival of others. CAll me a racist. What is good for my family supercedes the rights of others and I will not accomodate anyone who chooses to impose their will on me.
We can have healthy discussion. But if forced to choose sides I will always choose my right first and foremost!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.