INDCJournal: Quick Links

« Frontline: "The Insurgency" | Main | Foreign Real Estate Bargains »

February 22, 2006

Quick Links

Posted by Bill

*** Dean Esmay reasserts that "the cure for irresponsible speech is more speech," as does Goldstein:

Speech is defeated by speech�and should be, up until the point where that remedy is no longer plausible or effective, and a turn toward violence is inevitable.
In most cases, ancillary acts carried out as a result of the beliefs themselves are enough for law enforcement to involve themselves in what is otherwise a speech issue (the desecration of graves or synagogues, the harrassment or assault on Jews, etc.); which is why so long as the belief remains a fringe belief in the west, I can see no reason at all to fight it with bans and prison time (though I understand the impulse, and recognize the peculiar history that makes such a choice seem wise).

*** From the enemies make strange bedfellows file: Slate publishes "Bush Critics You Should Trust: A guide to the conservatives and Republicans who have turned on the president." While I don't disagree with some of the angles presented against Bush, it's always amusing to see certain ideologies (liberals, in this case) contort themselves to embrace opponents that share a grudge against a hated bete noir. The Pat Buchanan-Leftist love affair over isolationism these past few years has been a howler, for example.

*** Regarding the United Arab Emirates port ~~security~~ administration controversy, I'm undecided. While my instinct leans towards Robert Ferrigno's position ...

Bush is going to take some ugly political flak for a better cause. The USA needs to strengthen ties with Arab nations. Period. The UAE is not Switzerland, but it's not Afghanistan either, and yes they recognized the Taliban government. They're politicians too. If we can do business with Pakistan, and we must, the UAE is as good an Islamic business partner as we're going to get.
To take away the deal from the UAE now, for no other reason than their religion, would rightly insult all Muslims, and do irreparable damage to our long term interests. This would not even be an issue if the ports were secure. That should be the focus of conservative attention, not who gets the deal to run the port.

... I don't think that contracting our port ~~security~~ administration out to a Middle Eastern company is merely about "religion," and I also don't have the answers to certain relevant questions:

What are the protocols in place to prevent a jihadi terrorist from insinuating himself into the relationship and facilitating an attack on the US?

What are the specifics regarding the UAE's historical alliance with the US?

To what degree - a la Saudia Arabia and Pakistan - is the UAE's government and/or populace comprised of individuals that are overtly supportive of radical elements?

I confess that I'm simply not informed enough to render definitive judgment. On its face, denying a contract to Middle Eastern company simply because of geography, religion, race, association is a bad precedent that sends a terrible message to a needed political ally, but there are important practicalities to consider when we're talking about our national security, specifically our already porous ports. For example, I have a better idea of how I'd feel if the company was based in Saudi Arabia, as the ties between any corporate entity and the government, and the government's penetration by individuals with sympathetic ties to terror would probably carry unacceptable risk.

On the domestic political front, two thoughts:

1. The administration - specifically Bush, who, fairly interpreted or not, is telegraphing simple obstinance - is doing a terrible job of communicating the rationale behind its resistance to scuttling the deal.

2. The negative political implications for support from the GOP base are made worse by Bush threatening to finally use the veto over something like this, as opposed to the myriad pork-laden items that have come across his desk, for example.

The round-up at Instapundit leans towards supporting Bush on the issue.

Any thoughts?

UPDATE: Some of the answers to my "relevant questions" are partially addressed in a WaPo article:

Stewart A. Baker, assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security, said at a news conference yesterday that Dubai Ports World, which won a takeover battle for a British firm that now operates terminals in the ports, promised during an internal administration review that it would continue participating in security programs previously entered into with the U.S. government.
And Michael Seymour, head of North American operations for Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., the British firm being bought by the UAE firm, said the workers handling security in U.S. ports are supplied by longshoremen's unions -- an arrangement he said would remain in effect. "So it doesn't make any difference whether we are their employers, or other terminal operators are their employers," he said.

UPDATE: Text modified for precision and a Wall Street Journal editorial via commenter Michael Daniels:

Mr. Graham told Fox News that the Administration's decision allowing the state-owned Dubai Ports World to run commercial operations at U.S. ports was "tone deaf politically." The voluble Senator said this is no time "to outsource major port security to a foreign-based company" and that "most Americans are scratching their heads wondering, 'Why this company, from this region, now?' "
Some of us are scratching our heads all right, but we're wondering why Mr. Graham and others believe Dubai Ports World has been insufficiently vetted for the task at hand. So far, none of the critics have provided any evidence that the Administration hasn't done its due diligence. The deal has been blessed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a multiagency panel that includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense and Homeland Security.

Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were UAE citizens. But then the London subway bombings last year were perpetrated by citizens of Britain, home to the company (P&O) that currently manages the ports that Dubai Ports World would take over. Which tells us three things: First, this work is already being outsourced to "a foreign-based company"; second, discriminating against a Mideast company offers no security guarantees because attacks are sometimes homegrown; and third, Mr. Graham likes to talk first and ask questions later.

Besides, the notion that the Bush Administration is farming out port "security" to hostile Arab nations is alarmist nonsense. Dubai Ports World would be managing the commercial activities of these U.S. ports, not securing them. There's a difference. Port security falls to Coast Guard and U.S. Customs officials. "Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday. "The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation."

Posted by Bill at February 22, 2006 06:25 AM | TrackBack (6)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/dafrules/tapaz.cgi/2368

Comments

Have to take issue with your wording here. This deal has absolutely nothing to do with port security, which is overseen by US Customs and the Coast Guard. It's all about port administration. Discovering this little nuance put my mind at ease about the whole thing, and would probably do so for a lot of others if they weren't so intent on asserting their "independence" from the President. Check out this Wall Street Journal editorial on the subject.

Posted by: Michael Daniels at February 22, 2006 09:41 AM

Thanks Micheal, I will update the post with more precise language.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at February 22, 2006 09:42 AM

Yeah, it seems to me the more I hear about it, this isn't a huge deal in practice. Most people don't know much of anything about how our ports are run. A week ago, did you know all these ports were being administered by a British firm? I didn't.

It *is* terribly tone-deaf *politics* to not realize that this all sounds highly unusual and suspect to the average person, though. Some pre-emptive "Hey, we know this sounds kinda wonky, but we checked everything out, and here are the details, and here's why all these scary scenarios won't be any more likely" would've been a good idea.

Posted by: David C at February 22, 2006 09:51 AM

Aren't the ports still run by the regional port authorities?

Posted by: ICallMasICM at February 22, 2006 11:31 AM

The more I read, the less concerned I am about the deal. Consider also that the British firm is being bought by DP World, so there'll probably be a lot of the same people doing the nuts and bolts work.

And also the widely discussed tidbit that we only check 5% of all containers coming into the US. This is like looking at a wide open barn door and complaining that the rooster is under new management. Or something.

Posted by: dorkafork at February 22, 2006 01:06 PM

dorkafork,

You have a noteworthy point, however . . .

I was just doing a bit of work on an international training course about this issue last week, and several things stood out. Given the intense inspection that this 5% go through, subjecting the other 95% to the same inspection would require more manpower than we have available, and would cost untold dollars in lost time. That's why we have measures like the Container Security Initiative, which assigns a number value to every container based on its port of origin, the flag under which its transported, its contents, security measures taken at previous points of transit, and a number of other factors. The Initiative also gives incentives (such as fast-tracking) for use of additional security features such as RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) tags that reveal whether a container has been tampered with.

Incidentally, the United Arab Emirates was the first Arab nation to sign on to the CSI.

It's the age-old debate between freedom and security. In this case, vigilance is (as always) important, but the cost of inspecting every single container is just too great to be anything close to practical.

Posted by: Michael Daniels at February 22, 2006 02:35 PM

I heard some congressman on the news saying that it will even be all Americans unloading the ships because union longshoremen are the only people allowed to unload shipborne freight of any kind in any US seaport.

So nobody from the UAE will be controlling security or unloading a single crate from any ship. This makes this probably issue number three or four that I've agreed with Bush.

Posted by: SeanH at February 22, 2006 02:36 PM

Good point, Michael. That was probably a bad example on my part. Especially since, whenever I've heard proposals to check most if not all of the containers, I've thought they were ridiculous.

Let me restate that and say that if port security is that important, then this deal is the least of our problems. I think port security is a pretty low priority, and the deal will at worst be a minor danger to a low priority. And all of a sudden a lot of people are thinking defensively instead of offensively.

Posted by: dorkafork at February 22, 2006 03:12 PM

well put, dorkafork.

Posted by: Michael Daniels at February 22, 2006 03:42 PM

ionolsen22 Your home page its great

Posted by: thomson at October 18, 2006 05:29 PM

ionolsen24 May we exchange links with your site?

Posted by: babnik at October 20, 2006 04:13 PM