Here's a nice succinct way of putting it:
The ironic fact is that the UAE is precisely the kind of Arab ally the United States needs most now. But that clearly didn't matter to an election-year Congress, which responded to the Dubai deal with a frenzy of Muslim-bashing disguised as concern about terrorism. And we wonder why the rest of the world doesn't like us.
Burning Allies -- and Ourselves, an op-ed in the Washington Post by David Ignatius, 03/10/2006 (a fun aside for Ignatius can be found
here, in his upcoming movie deals with director Sir Ridley Scott).
I'm making a list of people who should never talk ever again about foreign policy. Updates here.
This is the amendment added by Jerry Lewis (R-CA) regarding blocking Dubai Ports World (pdf) that has been attached to H.R. 4939 (pdf, see pp.82-83, Sec 3011) "Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes."
House Subcommittee members voting for the amendment
Jerry Lewis (R-CA - Chairman)
C. W. Bill Young (R-FL)
Ralph Regula (R-OH)
Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Frank R. Wolf (R-VA)
Tom DeLay (R-TX)
James Walsh (R-NY)
Charles H. Taylor (R-NC)
David L. Hobson (R-OH)
Ernest J. Istook, Jr. (R-OK)
Henry Bonilla, TX (R)
Joe Knollenberg, MI (R)
Jack Kingston, GA (R)
Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, NJ (R)
Roger F. Wicker, MS (R)
Todd Tiahrt, KS (R)
Zach Wamp, TN (R)
Tom Latham, IA (R)
Anne Northup, KY (R)
Robert Aderholt, AL (R)
Jo Ann Emerson, MO (R)
Kay Granger, TX (R)
John E. Peterson, PA (R)
Virgil Goode, VA (R)
John Doolittle, CA (R)
Ray LaHood, IL (R)
John Sweeney, NY (R)
Don Sherwood, PA (R)
Dave Weldon, FL (R)
Michael K. Simpson, ID (R)
John Abney Culberson, TX (R)
Mark Steven Kirk, IL (R)
Ander Crenshaw, FL (R)
Dennis R. Rehberg, MT (R)
John Carter, TX (R)
Rodney Alexander, LA (R)
David R. Obey, WI (D - Ranking Member)
John P. Murtha, PA (D)
Norman D. Dicks, WA (D)
Martin Olav Sabo, MN (D)
Steny H. Hoyer, MD (D)
Alan B. Mollohan, WV (D)
Marcy Kaptur, OH (D)
Peter J. Visclosky, IN (D)
Nita M. Lowey, NY (D)
Jose E. Serrano, NY (D)
Rosa L. DeLauro, CT (D)
John W. Olver, MA (D)
Ed Pastor, AZ (D)
David E. Price, NC (D)
Chet Edwards, TX (D)
Robert E. "Bud" Cramer, Jr., AL (D)
Patrick J. Kennedy, RI (D)
James E. Clyburn, SC (D)
Maurice D. Hinchey, NY (D)
Lucille Roybal-Allard, CA (D)
Sam Farr, CA (D)
Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., IL (D)
Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, MI (D)
Allen Boyd, FL (D)
Chaka Fattah, PA (D)
Steven R. Rothman, NJ (D)
Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., GA (D)
Marion Berry, AR (D)
People consistently and vocally displaying no clue
John Kerry (D-MA)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Charles Schumer, (D-NY)
Howard Dean, DNC Chairman
Harold E. Ford Jr. (D, State Senator TN) - "President Bush wants to sell this port -- and five others -- to the United Arab Emirates"
Here's a set of criteria to tell that people are idiots about "ports" and "security"
- If they use the word "own" as in 'Dubai or UAE will own ports in the US,' or "run" as in 'Dubai or UAE will run US ports'
- If they conflate terminal operations and port security (port security, dummies, is handled by US Customs/Border and the Coast Guard)
- If they're unaware that 80% of the west coast ports are "run" or "owned" by non-US companies and in some cases (Singapore) partially foreign-government owned companies
Dubai company moving ports ops to US entity - senator, Reuters, now
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The state-owned Arab company, Dubai Ports World, has pledged to transfer operation of U.S. ports it has acquired from P & O to a U.S. entity, Sen. John Warner said on Thursday.
Warner, a Virginia Republican, read to the U.S. Senate from a document he said was a statement by Dubai Ports World's chief operating officer, Edward Bilkey. "DP World has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of P & O Ports, North America to a United States entity," Warner read from the document.
Warner's the chairman of the Senate's Armed Services Committee and had been attempting to save the deal.
I'm wondering if this is an harbinger of impending foreign divestment in the US.
Also, the phrasing "a United States entity" coming from a Republican sounds ripe for the Democratic cries of "no-bid!" since the longshot is KBR's minor-player port's managerment company, Devonport Management Limited. (website)
Chuck Schumer, not willing to let the spotlight off his face, said:
Just after Warner's announcement, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a chief critic of the deal was cautious.
“This is obviously a promising development, but the devil's in the details,” Schumer said. “Those of us who feel strongly about this issue believe that the U.S. part of the British company should have no connection to the United Arab Emirates or DP World.”
Seems like he continues to be willfully unclear that P&O is a Dubai company and that "contracts" do not make up a "U.S. part."
Dubai company says moving ports ops to U.S. entity, Reuters, update
The statement said the decision "is based on an understanding that DP World will have time to affect the transfer in an orderly fashion and that DP World will not suffer economic loss." It added that the company would work with the U.S. Treasury Department to implement the decision.
Yeah, that's right,
orderly fashion, cause further embarassment to the U.S. would've been when DPW sued the government (thanks "appearing to be strong on security" bloc) for income lost.
The politics on the DPW deal (that's gone through, btw) is, in my opinion, short term political "gains" at the expense of actual long-term security. There's only been one voice on the news I've seen recently (and I really haven't seen much news), so I'm digging all the quotes I can search out on Kim Childs, VP of
The American Business Group of Abu Dhabi. An expanded 2nd quote's being replayed during BBC World's coverage.
"If the deal is blocked on terms that aren't consistent with a due diligence process, that sends a loud and clear message to our friends that maybe they should rethink investments in the U.S.," said Kim Childs, ABG executive vice president.
"We deeply regret what appears to have been an uninformed rush to judgment by some opponents of the transaction, as well as inflammatory language that some have adopted," she told reporters in the UAE capital Abu Dhabi.[1]
Much of the uproar is coming from "people in Washington who have never been here or worked here," said Kim Childs, executive vice president of the American Business Group of Abu Dhabi, who first came to the United Arab Emirates 11 years ago from Pennsylvania. "Most of us have raised our children here and have our businesses here," she said. Some of the criticism of the emirates has been like "slapping your best friend in the face," she added. [2]
"A delegation will go this month to educate politicians on relations between the UAE and the United States," said Kim Childs, executive vice-president of the Abu Dhabi-based American Business Group.
"The UAE is a reliable and trustworthy partner and one of our closest allies," she said. [3]
1
U.S.-UAE trade at risk from ports deal-business group, Reuters, 03/08/2006
2
U.S. Businesses Are Lining Up Behind Dubai, NYT 03/08/2006
3
US House committee votes to keep Dubai firm from US ports, Middle East Times, 03/09/2006
Here's a question that's been bugging me:
Why're we proliferating? (or, to be Indian about it, Whycome we proliferate?)
The US signed an agreement to give support to India's nuclear program but didn't insist on a seperation of their civil vs. military purposes. And our President went over there to do it.
- Aren't we a signer of the NPT? Yes, I know the US is a bit flexible with treaties, so this is more of a lead in bulletpoint. India's not an NPT signatory and in 1974 blew up a "peaceful" nuclear bomb using technology we'd supplied them, ostensibly for peaceful purposes.
- Didn't Congress make a law that says we're not going to proliferate, the Atomic Energy Act? Where's Congress's outrage on this deal with India? There's an argument here that says, well, we've got to have good relations with India and allow them an internal source of energy (nuclear) because otherwise they'll eventually get power-hungry and either compete with us for oil or go to Russia or China for their nuclear power assistance needs. Our energy security is a prime reason in this argument. I was under the impression that proliferation of nuclears was one of or greatest security-security issues?
- How come Bush's doing corporate interests' work? Not just nuclear, but also outsourcing. Oh sure, economically (theoretically) it makes sense to let the jobs flow throughout the global market. I'm behind that, actually. It's the practical matter of it that isn't panning out yet.
He also made a little speech about how the US shouldn't fear outsourcing. I guess he didn't get to see the quality of the outsourcers. Anyone who actually works in the tech field and has had to manage Indian outsourcers (like myself) knows that it's a real mixed bag over there. The bottom line being cheaper after multiple "do overs" doesn't justify the poor quality of efficiency.
There's no doubt there're some bright people there. Statistically, that's how it's got to be. Having a master's degree there is not the same as here. A lot of people have to get a Master's degree just to encounter a "cpu" unlike our kids who IM "OMG LOL" as they vote for American Idol.
Also, don't we have better representatives to do this sort of thing? Bill Gate goes over to India, the ex US Ambassador to India works for an firm lobbying for India and GE does nuclear support. We've even got a Secretary of Energy and Commerce. What's so important that our President's become our chief diplomat for proliferation in our interests and quelling of protectionist fears? Is making India's energy needs nuclear instead of oil-based enough of a pressure to ignore the fears of nuclear weapons proliferation? I've argued in the past that nuclear weapons are passe and not much of a threat, but that's predicated on how difficult it is to get new nuclear development going in a country. This seems like a different case because India has shown that they use civil nuclear technology for military uses.
I don't mean to conflate outsourcing and nuclear deals, either. They're seperate issues, tied together by our head guy doing the advocation, which is, in and of itself, cause for pause.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has produced a document entitled "U.S. Nuclear Cooperation With India: Issues for Congress" which has gone through three revisions, two of which I quote here:
US Nuclear Cooperation with India (pdf, html summary), CRS/State Department, 07/29/2005
If implemented, this cooperation would dramatically shift U.S. nonproliferation
policy and practice towards India. Such cooperation would also contravene the
multilateral export control guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which
was formed in response to India's proliferation. At a time when the United States has
called for all states to strengthen their domestic export control laws and
implementation and for tighter multilateral controls, U.S. nuclear cooperation with
India would require loosening its own nuclear export legislation, as well as creating
an NSG exception. Although some states may agree that it is necessary to create a
new paradigm for India, others may believe that this agreement undercuts the basic
bargain of the NPT – peaceful nuclear cooperation in exchange for forswearing
nuclear weapons. Observers note that U.S.-India cooperation could have
wide-ranging implications for the international nuclear nonproliferation regime, and
could prompt other suppliers, like China, to justify their supplying other non-nuclearweapon
states, like Pakistan.
US Nuclear Cooperation with India (pdf, html summary), CRS/State Department, 01/12/2006
India does not meet nonproliferation criteria for nuclear cooperation under
current U.S. law (Atomic Energy Act; P.L. 95-242; 42 U.S.C. 2153 et seq.). As such,
the President would have to exempt the agreement from those nonproliferation
criteria and submit nuclear exports for congressional review on an annual basis. The
President would also have to determine, subject to congressional review, that
continued exports were necessary, even though India has tested nuclear weapons and
continues its nuclear weapons program. Congress would have to approve such an
agreement with a joint resolution. The Administration, which might propose
legislation to Congress in early 2006, reportedly prefers to create an exception for
India to existing provisions of law through stand-alone legislation.
Rarely do I have public radio "driveway moments," sitting in my car listening to a program instead of going inside and turning on the radio, but sometimes work's not that exciting and there's a soy chai to be tended to.
This morning, KGNU aired a good Alternative Radio interview with Emran Qureshi who wrote an op-ed in the NYT entitled The Islam the Riots Drowned Out on their "Morning Magazine." Qureshi has a solid grasp of the history of Islam and the Islamic world as well as how the resurgence of Salafism and the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt have been trying to combat the Iranian revolution's dominance (prior to 9/11) of the image of Islam is a context worth understanding. Qureshi sets forth how this fundamentalist one-uppmanship has taken its toll on Islam. Also, he has a measured response to the issue of censorship.
The controversy comes at a time when many in the Islamic world view the war on terrorism as a war on Islam. They draw on memories of colonization and of the Crusades, when Western invaders ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad as an imposter.
Ironies abound. Saudi Arabia leads the protests, yet is systematically destroying its Islamic heritage. The Wahhabis who dominate Saudi Arabia do not believe in honoring Islam's holy men and women or the Prophet Muhammad (they've proscribed the celebration of his birthday). Driven by sectarian zeal, the Saudi authorities have razed and dug up virtually every site in Mecca and Medina linked to Muhammad, members of his family and his companions.
No, the answer is not more censorship. But it would be nice if Western champions of freedom of speech didn't trivialize it by deriving pleasure from their ability to gratuitously offend Muslims. They view freedom of speech much as Islamic fundamentalists do — simply as the ability to offend — rather than as the cornerstone of a liberal democratic polity that uses such freedoms wisely and responsibly. Worse, these advocates insist on handing Muslim radicals a platform from which to pose as defenders of the faith against an alleged Western assault on Islam.
I find his comparison of the critique of "the cartoons as hate speech" argument that I'm fond of as a bit disingenuous. He asks whether muslim-produced literature that could be construed as hate speech should be banned as well? The argument's not exactly apples-to-apples, what with Western media's inherent responsibility of weighing free speech vs. hate speech. Haters in the muslim world are obviously not going to police themselves and the western media wouldn't even know who they are, really, so they wouldn't publish them. If a media organization who is attempting to adhere to 'free speech principles' (whatever that means in Europe) itself produces encourages hate speech, that should be recognized for what it is: hypocrisy and a failing of the responsibility that comes with free speech. Regardless, his article takes a good angle to critique the popular view of Islam in America.
KGNU has mp3 archives of their interviews and when the place it up, I'll put a link here to the interview segment (the whole "Morning Magazine" tends to be 30mb and some people really don't need to hear Jim Hightower's inane ideations just to get to an interesting interview). Update: Since this was an Alternative Radio live interview, KGNU cut off their recording. You'll just have to take my word for it that it was worth sitting in the car for.
On a perfectly superficial aside aimed at "non-native" people trying to pronounce foreign-language words with some sort of ethnocorrectness: Bravo at your attempt but, please, pick a dialect. For example, if you want to pronounce "Karbala" and "Qawaali" be definite and consistent in the dialect chosen. There's nothing worse than a "dialect of the moment" pronunciation of Saudi, Iraqi, Pakistani, and Indian cities, places and things. You can pronounce both words as Arabic or as Urdu words (which sound slightly different), but mixing the two (especially mixing up the two), makes one sound very eracism. It really hurts the ears. After a while, I'd rather hear the anglicized pronunciations rather than a well-meaning butchered attempt.
The second interesting interview, which was actually before the first and only kept me in my car for a short period of time, was with Jim Spiri, a civilian contractor who was fired from KBR for writing an article about a Las Cruces, NM soldier whose casket he helped load on a plane back from Iraq,
The night Jesse Zamora was carried to the C-130. This incident seem to have blown up in KBR's face. Spiri's obviously a patriot and didn't really succumb to any anti-Bush goading of some of the callers, but he does come down pretty hard on KBR's management of their contract. From the segment, it seems like he'd been a good worker and was ground up in the bureacracy that complicates government contracts, something that hits home. Edit: Here's the interview with Jim Spiri on KGNU 03/02/2006