More on Ports

Normally I don't get responses to blog posts, but when I do, they're usually just tagged on the end by using the 'Comments' button. However, my dad had what I considered an interesting response that deserved more than just a tag. Who knew two guys from Colorado (or who have at least lived in CO a good portion of their respective lives) would have so much to say on ports :o). Anyway, here's what my dad had to say on the issue:

I read with interest your blog concerning our ports discussion.

It’s all politics on several levels.

First, the Bush administration has some responsibility to keep the Congress informed. Second George loves to tell the US how concerned he is with security issues. His administration never saw this coming. When the Brits started to divest themselves of this interest, the security issue should have been raised if one exists in the first place. It was at this level that the ownership issue should have been raised. Regularly, corporate ownership policies get taken care of during the divestiture process. Ownership in the US ports was just a small crumb in the scale of everything and the actual operations within the ports was insignificant as well.

The unanswered issue in the US really isn’t about Arabs owning a few terminal facilities, it’s whether their ownership allows them an inside into our security arrangements in our ports. Most wonder what firewalls exist to prevent the owners from finding out everything about how the US government intends to control port access. The UAE keeps bringing out their US COO of the ports who says everything is great. Unfortunately, in his public testimony, he leaves the impression that he cannot spell the word, port. Therefore, there is no great public confidence in his ability to build a firewall.

The Dems are just maximizing their political opportunity here. Mrs. Clinton is barking and her husband is giving direct, paid lobbying advice to the UAE. It’s pretty shallow. Yet, George keeps telling us about his version of world freedom and democracy as defined by the US. We, the US always know what’s right -- see our newly announced policy about equipping India’s nuclear needs to benefit our corporate entities. Somehow you would think that the rest of world should have an opportunity to offer their thoughts on the matter.

The other thing giving this port deal in our country some momentum is the UAE policy on Israel. Their official policy is negative. Yet, they play wink/wink when they deal with Israeli shipping including keeping their sailors on their ships rather than letting them visit the ports where they land. So, some of our politicians bring this up just to inflame the pro-Israeli side of the argument. And, the Bush response is to suck its thumb. Mr. Snow, their economics secretary, held a railroad company which sold some of its interest to the UAE folks. So, he is perceived as someone having a vested interest in the transaction.

Frankly, nearly everyone involved is a Johnnie-come-lately to the issue. Their knowledge is usually a mile-wide but only one inch deep. The discussion usually breaks down into name calling with little substantive ever discussed.

Everybody sees themselves coming out the winner with the 45-day cooling off period. Nothing will change; but,everyone will say they did something to better the process. With respect to anti-Arab bias, everyone in the US will continue with this position as long as they announce they are anti-Israeli and everyone fears the Muslim sense of religious freedom. Their definition of religious freedom has a close parallel to George’s definition of democracy. By the way, in Pakistan George lauded them as being an Arab country. What he apparently was citing was that they are a Muslim country and they are our friends. Things have changed greatly since LBJ went there and presented them a tank to show them our friendship. But, then it was still two separate land masses.