On the ports, I don't really understand...please explain.

[emmajane67]

Okay, I am probably going to get flamed to hell and to let you know I hva eonly 20 minutes left online to debate the issue.
I really just want to learn something.
I am not American, an important factor.

What is the big problem here? Why are people so angry? A question not an accusation that people shoudn't be.
Is it because the ports will be foreign owned?
Is it because of what country the company who will own them comes from?
Why is a big deal for American ports to be foreign owned but many other round the world are also not owned by the country in which the port is based? And not just ports, water supply, oil, gas, transport etc.
Do the people who argue that this deal should not go through on foreign ownership grounds believe that in the perfect world the same should occur in other countries?

[xiamiam]

1. it is because a foreign country would own the operations of the ports

[emmajane67]

2. Okay, I personally can understand that point of view.

I would feel the same way were it in my country.
Is it wrong when it happens in reverse (In your opinion)?
i.e. American company ownership of other countries major assests (ports etc.)

[xiamiam]

5. in my view...yes....nt

[MissB]

6. What you don't understand is that the UAE company

is essentially owned by the UAE government - it isn't like a private British company or a private American company. A foreign country would have control of our ports - not just that a foreign company would have control.

[liveoaktx]

14. Here's what Atrios said today-succinctly

About Warner calling a hearing into this

<snip>
State actors have different interests than at least the idealized view of business actors. The latter are pursuing profit, the former are pursuing a variety of interests. While in practice the world is not as neatly divided up like that as it should be, when you completely merge business deals and diplomacy you've got problems, especially when those business deals involve port security issues. Handing the keys of our ports over to a foreign government which is pursuing a variety of interests is not such a good idea, especially when that government is a hereditary oligarchy and not a liberal democracy.
</snip>

[havocmom]

21. I can see how a population in another nation would be angry

at US interests owning vital resources and controlling service markets in their nation too. I have ALWAYS understood that. What has amazed me is how so many of my fellow Americans don't see that as a seed of so much anti-American feeling in the world, particularly in the Third World, where people struggling for survival see their nation's resources sold off to rich Americans- I can understand a bit of how they would feel.

I know it is rich American COMPANIES that exploit other populations, so I don't take a lot of anti-American sentiment personally. I am NOT America so I don't get too confused about it when I read of demonstrations/protests against America. I AM an American and know it is my duty to try my best to make my government responsive and responsible for what it does and what it allows corporations to do. It is no surprise to me when peoples who have been long exploited get pushed to the point of violence in their desperation.

The past few years, I am a very angry and frustrated American. The people who stole my government do not have my best interests in mind. Neither do they have other nations and peoples best interests in mind. They serve only these huge, soulless, heartless entities that only seek the artificial substance called money.

[havocmom]

12. Yep. And I would imagine that most of us would have been in uproar

about a British company running six of our busiest ports, had we known about it! Part of the outrage probably comes from just finding out that US ports are not run by US based companies. Part of the outrage is finding out just how vulnerable all this privatization actually makes us.

Sure, people whine about taxes and are easily swayed by arguments that so and so will lower their taxes. But they don't generally project thinking beyond that 'lower taxes' BS to what the politicians are actually doing, which is selling off the market for essential services (to all of us) to private concerns.

We have been seeing the deregulation chickens coming home to roost in all sorts of financial blows from companies which provide utilities which, in many locations, USED to be public. Now we are getting a view of the post-privatization world. There are no nations, no national security, not really any national laws. If giant corporations wanna do something, they just buy enough politicians to make it legal. If they don't want to face responsibility for anything they do, their whores in office will take care of that too.

It is not just the idea of Arabs running US ports that is evoking such a strong response. It is awakening to the reality that the corporations can buy and sell America that is hitting most people in the gut. They just haven't sorted it out in their heads yet.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. It is a matter of security

UAE doesn't have a good track record of keeping its own port secure-drugs run through it, and the nuclear materials that went illegally from Pakistan to N. Korea went through UAE. That is a BIG factor.

I will also acknowledge a certain amount of xenophobia in our nation. So many jobs have been outsourced lately, people are shocked to find out that foreign businesses have been running our ports for years. I think what you are seeing is a reaction to globalization in combination about fears for our security.

I hope this answers your questions.

[converted_democrat]

4. For me it's because the company is a "state" owned company and

the the banks of that "state" helped launder and funnel money to the 9-11 hijackers... That's my beef.

[Glimmer of Hope]

17. That is my beef too.

Per Bob Graham:

"In general terms it included the details of why we had raised suspicion that the Saudi government and various representatives of Saudi interests had supported some of the hijackers - and might have supported all of them. My own personal conclusion was that the evidence of official Saudi support for at least two of the terrorists in San Diego was, as one CIA agent said, incontrovertible. That led us to another question: Why would the Saudis have provided that level of assistance to two of the 19 and not the other 17? There wasn't an adequate attempt to answer that question. My feeling was there wasn't anything to justify that discrepancy, and so there was a strong possibility that such assistance had been provided to others of the terrorists, but we didn't know about it. Then there's another question: If there was this infrastructure in place that was accessed by the terrorists, did it disappear as soon as 9/11 was completed? There's no reason to believe that it did."



http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/4/6173

[converted_democrat]

20. I'm from Florida.. They don't make em' like Graham anymore..

He was a hell of a man..

[BOHICA06]

7. It really isn't a problem ........

foriegn companies have held the opperation before. But if you believe in nation level profiling or are cautioous about prior questionalble support of the Taliban and financial institution access to hijackers it is a great concern .... a nasty two edge sword.

[Ron Mexico]

8. Go to any right-wing site.

They'll all explain to you what their problem is. They may sound racist and certainly will sound stupid, but this time I'm not sure they're 100% wrong.

[seemunkee]

9. How about this.

Most people probably didn't know the ports were already foreign owned, and if they did probably wouldn't be too upset at British ownership. After all Britain is a trusted ally. That the UAE will own them is problematic since they have laundered/financed terrorists as unofficial policy of the govt. Who owns and runs ports in other countries is the business of those countries not ours.

[Texasgal]

10. My beef?

Americans should have these jobs. This is just another "outsource" that has some issues of national security tied to it as well.

[emmajane67]

11. Okay, thanks guys, I'm getting the picture...

and it's kind of what I was afraid of.

Do you think this would be a good opportunity to explain to right-wingers some of the greivences of other countries regarding globalisation. Say, okay, this scares you and you think it's wrong for two reasons (foreign ownership and the nature of the political relationship between country of foreign owner and the U.S.) and perhaps that's what the people of ___(insert country name here)___ feel too.

Or am I a hopeless idealist?

[Ron Mexico]

13. Hopeless idealist. Consider who you'd be talking to. (n/t)

[xiamiam]

16. i have an aunt(my favorite) who is a repug..when she tells me we

need oil, etc...i always ask her, well if you dont have any food do you think its ok to go to your neighbors and take his food and did you teach your children that?...its simplistic, i know...but my feelings no matter how grand the scale...

[On the Road]

15. Check Out This Post by Coastie for Truth

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=481615&mesg_id=489033

in particular, this reply by Tin Man which suggests some ways the deal might be exploited:

23. Yep, the real weakness in the UAE deal - intelligence for Al Queda
Imagine for a moment that Al Queda is able to position a single operative into the Port Management chain, such that he can spirit-away electronic copies of Port Operations databases - pretty easy to do.

With this info in hand, Al Queda can examine the databases for patterns in US inspection practices - specifically, how the likelihood of inspection might correlate to ship manifests, shipping companies, port of arrival, countries of origin, etc..

By simply stealing a database or two, Al Queda is better able to identify the weaknesses in the inspection system - as a consequence, they vastly improve their chances of smuggling a nuke or other WMD into the US.

[OneAngryDemocrat]

18. HYPOCRISY!!!

The UAE doesn't recognize the state of Israel, yet they can get control of six US ports, while the gov't of Palestine - who also does not recognize Israel - get's their US funding yanked for just that reason...

[emmajane67]

19. Thanks again.

It's good to get the perspective of people who I know I normally agree with about this issue from a U.S. citzen point of view.

I know I will get slated for this but the concerns raised by people seem to be very similar to those expressed around the world about various issues for a long time. Views which have received little sympathy in the mainstream press/discourse.

That's not to say it's right to have foreign ownership especially over important assests which may compromise the safety and security of U.S. citzens. Perhaps, however, this is an issue which may create some awareness of similar issues in other places.

(Still banging head again wall of idealism, I just can't help it)

[Fleshdancer]

22. Depends on who you talk to....

People on DU tend to dig deeper so you'll find that many people here are upset over the fact that the company is govt. owned, that this particular government hasn't exactly done a great job with their own ports and this deal has intimate connections with at least two people working in the White House. Of course there is the lingering anger at knowing that port operations are outsourced because EVERYTHING seems to be outsourced in the US these days.

Then again, some of us like to fan the flames of discontent since its fun to watch so many Bush lovers suddenly turn on him. They're right that Bush isn't keeping us safe, I just think they're right for all the wrong reasons. But that's just my take on things.

My gut tells me that the anger from the general public stems more from racism rather than the specific details of the deal though. For some, all people from the Middle East are terrorists and like Bush said, "you're either with us or against us". Funny how that silly little sound bite is now biting him in the ass. This administration can't exactly cry foul when it comes to this mentality because THEY have been fueling the Xenophobia for 5 years now for their own political gain regardless of the long term circumstances.

[sandnsea]

23. No,it's because it's the UAE

If the Singapore company had won the bid, there would have been a much more reasoned economic discussion and people may not even have batted an eye. The UAE is completely different, it is not racism, it's security. That country has been at the root of illegal dealings for decades.

[Fleshdancer]

24. I thought security was one of the issues I addressed at the beginning

I tried to give a number of valid reasons why there is concern for this deal but at the same time I can't help but think that some people (not all of course) are knee jerking because, as the headlines keep telling us, the ports are now operated by Arabs. Obviously security is a huge issue based on what I knew about the country before the deal and from everything I've read in the news over the past couple days, I don't doubt that for one second.

In a perfect world, most Americans would be discussing the corruption within the UAE but at this point, I'm not optimistic enough to think most Americans even know what the letters "UAE" stand for. A lot of the conversations seem to revolve around the word "Arab" which seems to be synonymous for "evil doer" for some *strange* reason. In my previous post, I just wanted to point out the irony of Bush's ridiculous rhetoric coming back to bite him.

[sandnsea]

25. It's not what I see

I see people talking about the corruption of the UAE and BCCI, to money laundering to terrorists, to the 9/11 hijacker connection. I don't see anybody kneejerking just because it's Arabs. If you see that, then that's on you.

Although I agree, watching the Bush "Islamofascist" blowback is comical.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. It's a combination of jingoism, racism, xenophobia and gotcha politics.