Beg, borrow, or steal a copy of the March 15th New York Times, and read Thomas Friedman’s op-ed, “Dubai and Dunces,” easily the best piece on the whole Dubai Ports World fiasco. I’ll quote a few lines:
“We need a post-9/11 commission, one that looks at all the big and little things we are doing — from sanctioning torture to warrantless wiretaps to turning our embassies abroad into fortresses — that over time could eat away at the core DNA of America…What is so crazy about the Dubai ports issue is that Dubai is precisely the sort of decent, modernizing model we should be trying to nurture in the Arab-Muslim world.”
“President Bush keeps talking about Iraq and the Arab world as if democracy alone is the cure and all we need to do is get rid of a few bad apples. The problem is much deeper…”
“Dubai is where we should want the Arab world to go. Unfortunately, we just told Dubai to go to hell.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Friedman is one of the most insightful columnists working today; this is one of his best recent columns.
5 comments:
I was so pissed when I heard about that. The President finally supported something that was probably good and it's during a huge drop in his approval that causes lots of people to buck and try to make an impression before elections. Great. Let's hear it for knee-jerk responses.
This is such a perfect example of a purely emotional response to an issue that was technically difficult and required genuine study to understand. No part of the American political process allows appropriate consideration of topics that have emotional aspects.
What I will find interesting is now the Dubai company is asking for an American company to bid on the ports in question. I'm curious what will happen when no one wants to buy them.
Well, of course, the Government should run them, cause, well, they are doing such a great job of running everything else.
Except debt, they got that one down.
Also, does anyone know how many of the major ports in the country we actually own? Several people I have talked to were shocked to realize that we don't own a lot of them.
We, as in US governmental entities own most (maybe all)major ports thus the term "Port Authority." DPW, and other port operators, lease one or more terminals within the port. The excellent Port of Tacoma web site uses the analogy of a mall and tennant stores. The public owns the port (mall) through the Port Authority, DPW would have leased the stores (terminals). Perhaps if the current administration had not relied on the "trust me I'm protecting you" vein of communication for every issue that comes down the pike it would have had enough traction left to spend some time explaining that. Port security is important to our national security, but rebuffing DPW won't help on that front. Sending the message that we will change the rules based on a corporation's nation of origin rather than performance will have a macro-economic impact we won't be able to measure for years. (There is a good reason it is the Sec. of the Treasury who chairs the board that decides when a foreign company can make such an acquisition.)
For the first time in 5 years I found myself on the same side of an issue and the pres flip flops away from me.
I feel the same way, Port Tampa. How weird to suddenly agree with the boss and then have him change his mind.
Post a Comment