There's one in every port
Feb. 27th, 2006 08:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ellyssianStill grinding data on the whole Dubai Port World/damn furriners runnin' arr ports controversy.
Surprisingly, I was in agreement with the Shrub at first. Still partially there. Not at all in agreement with how he's handling it, except to say that the more he continues to be publicly caught saying stupid things, the better that is for all concerned, at least, right up until he gets elected for a third term, or gets the rest of the world even more pissed off at us than they already are.
Anywho.
This NY Times article (and a gazillion other alternatives) is the first real indication I've had that the deal may not be a good thing.
Some reasoning is still as false as ever: the Coast Guard is worried about "the potential for foreign influences over the American ports..." Guess what UK citizens? You're not foreigners here in America! We've annexed you! The core issue here is that this isn't taking (or even buying) anything away from a flag-waving American company (who are busily outsourcing and offshoring and basically getting cheap labor from other countries to wave those flags for them,) but from another foreign company.
Both foreign companies - seller and buyer - are our allies. We trust the UAE to park our aircraft carriers, and the valets there hardly ever take them for a spin around the gulf.
The second issue is that of terminology - terminalology, really. These aren't whole, entire ports that are being sold. These are terminals. The company is named Dubai Ports World, which quite clearly uses the word "Port", but they don't control the whole entire port. Whether or not the terminals in question form a significant portion of the incoming traffic is another issue - it may be that one terminal in NYC takes in 100% of the incoming freight into NYC, but I rather doubt it.
Another similar issue is confusing a company with a government - Dubai Ports World is not UAE, just like Halliburton is not the USofA. Well, bad example maybe.
This article from UPI actually adds bunches of information that seems to be getting cut from the stuff reaching the masses, and has both more and less FUD. 21 ports vs. 6. Seems to be a pattern that even when this administration, referred to by the Shrub as "his government," allows information to escape, it never lets go of it all at once. Unlike certain situations involving hobbits, dwarves, werebears, and wizards, this slowly dolling out of information - giving more benefit of the doubt than they're worth that they're not simply losing control of withholding it - is not a good thing to do to a people who once were allegedly in charge of their own government.
"We have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of your amendment" - That's a scary-as-hell quote. That's the Treasury Department Deputy Secretary vs. Congress. I take that "We" to mean "his government" and the "your" to mean everyone else.
Another alarming bit from the article: 3000 "ports" in the country and they have no clue how many are foreign-owned. Makes me feel secure. Security through obscurity, I suppose.
According to the Council for Foreign Relations, it could all come down to a pissed off, underpaid truck driver - naturally, only Arab countries have those, thetrucklorry drivers in the UK are all smiles and patriotic to the US to a T, as are those from all the other foreign countries that ship us stuff or own our "ports." Not to mention our own batch of truck drivers, who would never stoop to such behavior...
So what's good about the deal?
I suppose it's not anywhere near as alarming as if Halliburton was buying the ports...
Surprisingly, I was in agreement with the Shrub at first. Still partially there. Not at all in agreement with how he's handling it, except to say that the more he continues to be publicly caught saying stupid things, the better that is for all concerned, at least, right up until he gets elected for a third term, or gets the rest of the world even more pissed off at us than they already are.
Anywho.
This NY Times article (and a gazillion other alternatives) is the first real indication I've had that the deal may not be a good thing.
Some reasoning is still as false as ever: the Coast Guard is worried about "the potential for foreign influences over the American ports..." Guess what UK citizens? You're not foreigners here in America! We've annexed you! The core issue here is that this isn't taking (or even buying) anything away from a flag-waving American company (who are busily outsourcing and offshoring and basically getting cheap labor from other countries to wave those flags for them,) but from another foreign company.
Both foreign companies - seller and buyer - are our allies. We trust the UAE to park our aircraft carriers, and the valets there hardly ever take them for a spin around the gulf.
The second issue is that of terminology - terminalology, really. These aren't whole, entire ports that are being sold. These are terminals. The company is named Dubai Ports World, which quite clearly uses the word "Port", but they don't control the whole entire port. Whether or not the terminals in question form a significant portion of the incoming traffic is another issue - it may be that one terminal in NYC takes in 100% of the incoming freight into NYC, but I rather doubt it.
Another similar issue is confusing a company with a government - Dubai Ports World is not UAE, just like Halliburton is not the USofA. Well, bad example maybe.
This article from UPI actually adds bunches of information that seems to be getting cut from the stuff reaching the masses, and has both more and less FUD. 21 ports vs. 6. Seems to be a pattern that even when this administration, referred to by the Shrub as "his government," allows information to escape, it never lets go of it all at once. Unlike certain situations involving hobbits, dwarves, werebears, and wizards, this slowly dolling out of information - giving more benefit of the doubt than they're worth that they're not simply losing control of withholding it - is not a good thing to do to a people who once were allegedly in charge of their own government.
"We have a difference of opinion on the interpretation of your amendment" - That's a scary-as-hell quote. That's the Treasury Department Deputy Secretary vs. Congress. I take that "We" to mean "his government" and the "your" to mean everyone else.
Another alarming bit from the article: 3000 "ports" in the country and they have no clue how many are foreign-owned. Makes me feel secure. Security through obscurity, I suppose.
According to the Council for Foreign Relations, it could all come down to a pissed off, underpaid truck driver - naturally, only Arab countries have those, the
So what's good about the deal?
I suppose it's not anywhere near as alarming as if Halliburton was buying the ports...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-27 07:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-27 08:07 pm (UTC)Fergitted to mention that last point - that's probably one of the biggest doubt-raising, alarm-setting-off kind of things about this whole, erm, thing.
That actually is pretty durn close to selling it to Halliburton. It's all about lining pocketses.
What's it got in its pocketses, we wonders, yes, we wonders...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-27 08:12 pm (UTC)I'd read in one of my links (which could be wrong, obviously) that DP is actually state owned, which means that yes, it is, actually, owned by UAE.
Apart from that, I'm right with you on this. But you've seen that already. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-27 08:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-28 05:19 am (UTC)I have a problem with having foreigners of any sort taking control of parts of the infrastructure of our country. I just don't think it is a good idea. That's not exactly a new thing though.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-28 06:34 am (UTC)Really, some of the uproar should have happened when a foreign company bought the terminal in the first place.
Either that, or just remove the whole concept of foreigners, countries, and other human constructs.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-28 12:40 pm (UTC)Now, re the port issue: I think the executive shrubbery are wrong about pretty near everything and that they speak with forked tongue and your children and grandchildren will pay for their shallowness and lack of foresight.